# Official Journal C 428/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 428 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6220 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 428

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6220 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 428/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9598 — Allianz/T&R) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2019/C 428/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2019/C 428/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9639 — CDC/EDF/Dalkia Investissement) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2019/C 428/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9627 — APG/Elecnor/CC&I) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 428/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9598 — Allianz/T&R) (
  1
  )

1

1

2019/C 428/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group) (
  1
  )

1

2

2019/C 428/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9639 — CDC/EDF/Dalkia Investissement) (
  1
  )

1

3

2019/C 428/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9627 — APG/Elecnor/CC&I) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2019/C 428/05 | Council Decision of 19 December 2019 appointing a member of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board | 5 |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 428/06 | Euro exchange rates — 19 December 2019 | 7 |
| 2019/C 428/07 | Commission Notice Reporting Guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU | 8 |
| 2019/C 428/08 | Commission Decision of 16 December 2019 on the renewal of the Commission Expert Group Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation | 34 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2019/C 428/05

Council Decision of 19 December 2019 appointing a member of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board

5

European Commission

2019/C 428/06

Euro exchange rates — 19 December 2019

7

2019/C 428/07

Commission Notice Reporting Guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU

8

2019/C 428/08

Commission Decision of 16 December 2019 on the renewal of the Commission Expert Group Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation

34

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 428/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials) (
  1
  ) | 41 |
| 2019/C 428/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9701 — InfraVia/Iliad/Iliad 73) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 43 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 428/11 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 44 |
| 2019/C 428/12 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 48 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 428/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials) (
  1
  )

1

41

2019/C 428/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9701 — InfraVia/Iliad/Iliad 73) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

43

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 428/11

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

44

2019/C 428/12

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

48

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9598 — Allianz/T&R)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/01)

On 5 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9598. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9598. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/02)

On 12 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9671. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9671. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9639 — CDC/EDF/Dalkia Investissement)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/03)

On 13 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9639. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9639. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9627 — APG/Elecnor/CC&I)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/04)

On 13 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9627. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9627. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 19 December 2019

appointing a member of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board

(2019/C 428/05)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Decision No 235/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its decision of 18 December 2017 (2), the Council appointed three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (the ‘Board’) for a term of office of three years from 1 February 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its decision of 18 December 2017 (2), the Council appointed three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (the ‘Board’) for a term of office of three years from 1 February 2018.

| (2) | One of the three members of the Board appointed by the Council, Mr Jaume GARCIA, resigned before the end of his term of office. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

One of the three members of the Board appointed by the Council, Mr Jaume GARCIA, resigned before the end of his term of office.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Board. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Board.

| (4) | According to Article 3(2) of Decision No 235/2008/EC, the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

According to Article 3(2) of Decision No 235/2008/EC, the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Priit POTISEPP is hereby appointed as a member representing the Council in the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board for a term of office of three years.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2019.

For the Council

The President

K. MIKKONEN

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 15.3.2008, p. 17.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 18 December 2017 appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (OJ C 439, 20.12.2017, p. 5).

2

---

European Commission

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 December 2019

(2019/C 428/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1117 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4723 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85073 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4780 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0899 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,473 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 330,52 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2617 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7710 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,6022 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6188 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4588 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6687 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6898 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 296,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9180 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7931 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4398 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 551,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6047 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,263 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,4593 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,568 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5163 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1158 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,0320 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1117

JPY

Japanese yen

121,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4723

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85073

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4780

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0899

ISK

Iceland króna

137,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,473

HUF

Hungarian forint

330,52

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2617

RON

Romanian leu

4,7710

TRY

Turkish lira

6,6022

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6188

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4588

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6687

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6898

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5074

KRW

South Korean won

1 296,60

ZAR

South African rand

15,9180

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7931

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4398

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 551,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6047

PHP

Philippine peso

56,263

RUB

Russian rouble

69,4593

THB

Thai baht

33,568

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5163

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1158

INR

Indian rupee

79,0320

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/8

---

COMMISSION NOTICE

Reporting Guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU

(2019/C 428/07)

| Note: References to Decision No 1313/2013/EU (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924) should be understood as: Decision No 1313/2013/EU as amended by Decision (EU) 2019/420 (OJ L 77 I, 20.3.2019, p. 1)
  In light of Article 28(1)a of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, where reference is made to Member States, it shall be understood as including Participating States as defined in Article 4(12) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. |
| --- |

Note: References to Decision No 1313/2013/EU (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924) should be understood as: Decision No 1313/2013/EU as amended by Decision (EU) 2019/420 (OJ L 77 I, 20.3.2019, p. 1)

In light of Article 28(1)a of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, where reference is made to Member States, it shall be understood as including Participating States as defined in Article 4(12) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

Table of contents

| Reporting guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU | 9 |
| --- | --- |

| Introduction | 9 |
| --- | --- |

| Objective and scope | 9 |
| --- | --- |

| TEMPLATE FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT | 11 |
| --- | --- |

| Part I. Risk assessment | 11 |
| --- | --- |

| Part II. Risk management capability assessment | 17 |
| --- | --- |

| Part III. Priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, low probability risks with a high impact | 22 |
| --- | --- |

| ACCOMPANYING GUIDANCE TO THE TEMPLATE | 25 |
| --- | --- |

| Part I. Risk assessment | 25 |
| --- | --- |

| 1.1 | Introduction | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1

| 1.2 | Guidance for responding to questions 1–8 of the Template (Part I) | 26 |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2

| Part II. Risk management capability assessment | 30 |
| --- | --- |

| 2.1 | Introduction | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1

| 2.2 | Guidance for responding to questions 9 – 20 of the Template (Part II) | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2

| Part III - Priority prevention and preparedness measures for key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, for low probability risks with a high impact | 32 |
| --- | --- |

| 3.1 | Introduction | 32 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1

| 3.2 | Guidance for responding to questions 21 – 24 of the Template (Part III) | 32 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.2

| ANNEX | 34 |
| --- | --- |

| Non-exhaustive list of risks relevant under eu legislation and/or policies | 34 |
| --- | --- |

| Non-exhaustive list of cross-cutting areas of common interest in eu legislation and/or policies | 37 |
| --- | --- |

Reporting Guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU

Introduction

Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (1) on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), as amended on 21 March 2019 (2), requires Member States to provide the Commission with summaries of the relevant aspects of their risk assessment and the assessment of their risk management capability, focusing on key risks. It also requires Member States to provide information on the priority prevention and preparedness measures needed to address key risks with cross-border impacts, and, where appropriate, low probability risks with a high impact (3).

The Commission has been tasked, together with Member States, to develop guidelines on the submission of the summary by 22 December 2019 (4).

These guidelines take the form of a Template, listing all main questions to be addressed in the national summaries, and accompanying guidance for completing the Template appropriately. These guidelines are non-binding and are designed to help with summarising the relevant aspects of:

| 1. | risk assessment, focusing on key risks, |
| --- | --- |

1.

risk assessment, focusing on key risks,

| 2. | risk management capability assessment, focusing on key risks, |
| --- | --- |

2.

risk management capability assessment, focusing on key risks,

| 3. | and a description of priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, low probability risks with a high impact. |
| --- | --- |

3.

and a description of priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, low probability risks with a high impact.

The summary of relevant elements of the risk assessment and the assessment of risk management capability should focus on key risks. It is the prerogative of the Member States to define key risks. Member States are asked to send their summaries to the Commission for the first time by 31 December 2020. After that, Member States should send them at three-yearly intervals, and whenever a significant change occurs.

In line with Article 6(1), Member States are not required to share sensitive information which, if disclosed, could harm their essential security interests.

These guidelines replace the Commission notice on Risk Management Capability Assessment Guidelines (5).

Objective and scope

The guidelines are designed to facilitate reporting by Member States, to help meet the objectives of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, in particular to:

| — | ‘achieve a high level of protection against disaster by preventing or reducing their potential effects, by fostering a culture of prevention and by improving cooperation between the civil protection and other relevant services’ (6); |
| --- | --- |

—

‘achieve a high level of protection against disaster by preventing or reducing their potential effects, by fostering a culture of prevention and by improving cooperation between the civil protection and other relevant services’ (6);

| — | provide the Commission with the information needed for it to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, in particular:






  (a) | take action to improve the knowledge base on disaster risks, and to better facilitate and promote cooperation and the sharing of knowledge, the results of scientific research and innovation, best practices and information, including among Member States facing common risks; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

provide the Commission with the information needed for it to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, in particular:

(a)

take action to improve the knowledge base on disaster risks, and to better facilitate and promote cooperation and the sharing of knowledge, the results of scientific research and innovation, best practices and information, including among Member States facing common risks;

| (b) | support and promote Member States' risk assessment and mapping activity through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge and expertise on issues of common interest; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

support and promote Member States' risk assessment and mapping activity through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge and expertise on issues of common interest;

| (c) | establish and regularly update a cross-sectoral overview and map of natural and man-made disaster risks the Union may face, by taking a coherent approach across different policy areas that may address or affect disaster prevention and taking due account of the likely impacts of climate change; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

establish and regularly update a cross-sectoral overview and map of natural and man-made disaster risks the Union may face, by taking a coherent approach across different policy areas that may address or affect disaster prevention and taking due account of the likely impacts of climate change;

| (d) | encourage an exchange of good practices in preparing national civil protection systems to cope with the impact of climate change; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

encourage an exchange of good practices in preparing national civil protection systems to cope with the impact of climate change;

| (e) | promote and support the development and implementation of Member States' risk management activity through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge and expertise on issues of common interest; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

promote and support the development and implementation of Member States' risk management activity through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge and expertise on issues of common interest;

| (f) | compile and disseminate the information made available by Member States; organise an exchange of experiences about the assessment of risk management capability; and facilitate the sharing of good practices in prevention and preparedness planning, including through voluntary peer reviews; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

compile and disseminate the information made available by Member States; organise an exchange of experiences about the assessment of risk management capability; and facilitate the sharing of good practices in prevention and preparedness planning, including through voluntary peer reviews;

| (g) | report periodically, in accordance with the deadlines set out in point (c) of Article 6, to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made in the implementation of Article 6; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

report periodically, in accordance with the deadlines set out in point (c) of Article 6, to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made in the implementation of Article 6;

| (h) | promote the use of various Union funds which may support sustainable disaster prevention and encourage the Member States and regions to exploit those funding opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

promote the use of various Union funds which may support sustainable disaster prevention and encourage the Member States and regions to exploit those funding opportunities;

| (i) | highlight the importance of risk prevention, support the Member States in awareness-raising, public information and education, and support the Member States' efforts in the provision of public information on alert systems, by providing guidance on such systems, including at a cross-border level; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

highlight the importance of risk prevention, support the Member States in awareness-raising, public information and education, and support the Member States' efforts in the provision of public information on alert systems, by providing guidance on such systems, including at a cross-border level;

| (j) | promote prevention measures in the Member States and third countries referred to in Article 28 through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge of and expertise in issues of common interest; and |
| --- | --- |

(j)

promote prevention measures in the Member States and third countries referred to in Article 28 through the sharing of good practices, and facilitate access to specific knowledge of and expertise in issues of common interest; and

| (k) | in close consultation with Member States, take additional necessary supporting and complementary prevention action in order to achieve the objective specified in point (a) of Article 3(1); |
| --- | --- |

(k)

in close consultation with Member States, take additional necessary supporting and complementary prevention action in order to achieve the objective specified in point (a) of Article 3(1);

| — | provide the Commission with the necessary information to establish and support disaster risk management priorities and measures under various EU funds and instruments; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide the Commission with the necessary information to establish and support disaster risk management priorities and measures under various EU funds and instruments;

| — | help to formulate better-informed decisions on how to prioritise and allocate investments in prevention, preparedness and response measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

help to formulate better-informed decisions on how to prioritise and allocate investments in prevention, preparedness and response measures.

As required by the applicable UCPM legislation (Article 6 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU), Member States provided the Commission with summaries of their national risk assessment (December 2015 and 2018) and risk management capability assessments (August 2018). The contributions received revealed that these assessments were compiled on the basis of a variety of processes and methodologies.

These guidelines significantly simplify and streamline the reporting process under Article 6. They build on experience with practical implementation of national risk assessments and mapping of major natural and man-made disaster risks in Member States and on the national risk management capability assessment reports sent to the Commission. They also take account of the previous Commission staff working paper on the ‘Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management’ (7) and the Risk Management Capability Assessment Guidelines (8). They take into account requirements under existing EU legislation, and do not affect obligations thereunder (9).

TEMPLATE FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

Part I. Risk assessment

| 1. | Risk assessment process |
| --- | --- |

1.

Describe how the risk assessment process fits into the overall disaster risk management framework. Detail legislative, procedural and institutional aspects. Please, explain whether responsibility for the risk assessment lies at national level or at an appropriate sub-national level.

| 2. | Consultation with relevant authorities and stakeholders |
| --- | --- |

2.

Describe the range of relevant authorities and stakeholders involved in the risk assessment process.

If appropriate
  : Describe the nature of their involvement, specifying their roles and responsibilities.

| 3. | Identifying the key risks at national or sub-national level |
| --- | --- |

3.

Identify the key risks that could have significant adverse human, economic, environmental and political/social impacts (including security).

From the above key risks, identify
  :

| 3.1 | Any key risks which could have significant adverse cross-border impacts, coming from or affecting the neighbouring country or countries. |
| --- | --- |

3.1

| 3.2 | Any key risks with a low probability and high impact. |
| --- | --- |

3.2

Where appropriate:

| 3.3 | Identify any key risks expected in future. These may include any emerging risks (10)that could have significant adverse human, economic, environmental and political/social impacts (including impacts on security). |
| --- | --- |

3.3

| 4. | Identifying climate change impacts |
| --- | --- |

4.

Determine which of the above-mentioned key risks are directly linked to climate change impacts. Please take into consideration the existing national and sub-national climate change adaptation strategy and/or action plans (11) or any relevant climate risk and vulnerability assessments, where appropriate.

| 5. | Risk analysis |
| --- | --- |

5.

Describe the scale of levels of probability and impact of the key risks identified (in Q3) including the key cross-border and key risks with a low probability and a high impact and, where appropriate, future and/or emerging risks.

Display the results in a single risk matrix or other visualised graph/model as well, if applicable.

If appropriate:

  Outline the methods, models and techniques used to assess the probability and impacts of the different risks or risk scenarios.

| 6. | Risk mapping |
| --- | --- |

6.

State whether any risk maps have been produced showing the expected spatial distribution of the key risks as identified at the identification and analysis stages (Q3, Q4 and Q5). If so, include them as appropriate.

| 7. | Monitoring and reviewing risk assessment |
| --- | --- |

7.

Outline the system in place for monitoring and reviewing risk assessment so as to factor in new developments.

| 8. | Communicating risk assessment results |
| --- | --- |

8.

Describe the process of communicating and disseminating the results of the national risk assessment. Outline how the risk assessment results are shared among policymakers, various public authorities with different types of responsibility, different levels of administration, and other relevant stakeholders. State whether and how the general public is informed about the results of risk assessment, to make them aware of risks in their country or region and/or enable them to take informed decisions to protect themselves.

| Optional: Good practices |
| --- |
| Outline recent good practices relevant to Questions 1-8. |

Optional: Good practices

Outline recent good practices relevant to Questions 1-8.

Part II. Risk management capability assessment

| 9. | Legislative, procedural and/or institutional framework |
| --- | --- |

9.

Describe the framework in place for the risk management capability assessment process(es). State whether it is based on a legal act, a strategic plan, an implementation plan or other procedural frameworks.

If appropriate

  : State how often risk management capability is assessed.

State whether the risk management capability assessment(s) is used for decision-making purposes.

| 10. | Roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities |
| --- | --- |

10.

Describe the roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities at national or sub-national level (as appropriate), distinguishing between risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, and response, and focusing on the management of the key risks identified.

Describe how horizontal coordination (the cross-sectoral approach) is ensured among these competent authorities, focusing on the management of the key risks identified.

| 11. | Roles of relevant stakeholders |
| --- | --- |

11.

State whether relevant stakeholders are informed about and involved in the disaster risk management process(es) for the key risks identified. If they are, describe how.

| 12. | Procedures and measures at national, sub-national and
  local level |
| --- | --- |

12.

Describe the established procedures to ensure vertical cooperation between the national, sub-national and local level authorities involved in disaster risk management process(es) for the identified key risks.

| 13. | Procedures and measures at cross-border, inter-regional and international level |
| --- | --- |

13.

Describe the procedures established to ensure cooperation at the cross-border, inter-regional and international levels for the disaster risk management of identified key risks. Describe measures in place to ensure disaster risk management for the key risks identified.

If appropriate

  : State whether disaster risk management policies are developed in a way that takes account of international commitments, such as the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

| 14. | Focus on climate change adaptation measures |
| --- | --- |

14.

State whether synergies between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures are established at national or sub-national level (as appropriate) for the key risks identified that are linked to climate change (Q4). If so, describe how.

| 15. | Focus on critical infrastructure protection measures |
| --- | --- |

15.

State whether there are measures in place to protect critical infrastructure regarded as relevant for the continuation of vital societal functions.

| 16. | Source(s) of funding |
| --- | --- |

16.

State whether the budget allows for resources to be allocated flexibly in case of urgent need and to what extent disaster funds promote preventive action.

Describe the funding sources used (e.g. national, sub-national, public, private, including insurance, EU and other international funding) to take priority measures in the field of disaster risk management when assessing, preventing, preparing for and responding to the key risks identified.

| 17. | Infrastructure, assets and equipment |
| --- | --- |

17.

Describe what is done to ensure that enough assets are available to mitigate the impact of disasters and respond promptly to disasters associated with the key risks identified.

| 18. | Focus on disaster loss data collection and procedures |
| --- | --- |

18.

State whether a system is in place to collect disaster loss data. Describe how data is collected on the key risks identified.

| 19. | Focus on early warning systems equipment and procedures |
| --- | --- |

19.

Describe the systems in place for early hazard detection and monitoring of the key risks identified. State whether forecasting methodologies are integrated into the system.

| 20. | Risk information and communication to raise public awareness |
| --- | --- |

20.

Describe how the public is informed of what action to take when facing risks. For example, state whether a strategy is in place to educate the public and raise awareness. State whether and how target groups are involved in the definition of prevention and preparedness measures and in the implementation of the risk information and communication activities.

| Optional: Good practices |
| --- |
| Outline recent good practices relevant to Questions 9-20. |

Optional: Good practices

Outline recent good practices relevant to Questions 9-20.

Part III. Priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, low probability risks with a high impact

| 21. | Key risks with cross-border impacts |
| --- | --- |

21.

List the key risks with cross-border impacts.

For each key risk with cross-border impacts, please complete the following box:

| 22. | Priority prevention and preparedness measures |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 22.1 | Describe existing priority prevention measures and any that are planned. |
| --- | --- |

22.1

| 22.2 | Describe existing
  priority preparedness measures and any that are planned. |
| --- | --- |

22.2

If EU legislation or policies already require reporting on priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing this risk, please simply refer to any reports already sent to the Commission.

Where appropriate:

| 23. | Low probability risks with a high impact |
| --- | --- |

23.

List any low probability risks with a high impact.

For each low probability risk with a high impact, please complete the following box:

| 24. | Priority prevention and preparedness measures |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 24.1 | Describe the existing priority prevention measures and any that are planned. |
| --- | --- |

24.1

| 24.2 | Describe the
  existing
  priority preparedness measures and any that are planned. |
| --- | --- |

24.2

If EU legislation or policies already require reporting on priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing this risk, please simply refer to any reports already sent to the Commission.

ACCOMPANYING GUIDANCE TO THE TEMPLATE

Part I. Risk assessment

1.1.   Introduction

The purpose of the risk assessment is to provide inputs into the decision-making process and disaster risk management and capability planning for policy-makers and relevant stakeholders, including those from the private sector; to inform the public about risks; and to monitor and review risks and vulnerabilities. The assessment thus provides a basis for planning disaster risk management and implementing related measures. To this end, the European Commission has already established “Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management” (12) in 2010 and periodically provides an “Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union may face” (13).

Disaster risk policies at European level deal with a variety of topics, including natural and man-made disaster risks such as: forest fires, health threats, pandemics, industrial risks, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats, security (cyber, terrorism), and others. In addition, other policies are also relevant for disaster risk management, including climate change and environmental policies.

According to Article 4(7) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, 'risk assessment' means the overall cross-sectoral process of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation undertaken at national or appropriate sub-national level. The risk evaluation (14) is an important part of the risk assessment to support decisions and ascertain where additional action is required. However, reporting on the outcomes of the risk evaluation is not required for the purpose of these guidelines, given the political nature of this stage. If the risk assessment already includes an evaluation of f risks, this can be provided to the Commission.

1.2.   Guidance for responding to questions 1–8 of the Template (Part I)

Q1 Risk assessment process

Describe how the risk assessment process fits into the overall disaster risk management framework. Detail legislative, procedural and institutional aspects. Please, explain whether responsibility for the risk assessment lies at national level and/or at an appropriate sub-national level.

State whether conducting a national or appropriate sub-national risk assessment is required by legislation or by other procedural or institutional requirements (e.g. a particular policy document). Name the coordinating authority responsible for leading the national risk assessment process.

The legislative/policy framework can support countries' policy-makers to establish effective multi-agency mechanisms to coordinate cooperation domestically on addressing identified risks. It also improves cooperation between domestic agencies/authorities, to improve a country's ability to respond to evolving risks.

Based on the EU analysis of the national risk management capability reports sent to the Commission in 2018, most Member States have recognised the importance of basing the risk assessment process on a legislative or procedural framework. However, some countries have separate legislative frameworks for different risks, stemming, for example, from different EU legislative requirements (15).

Q2 Consultation with relevant authorities and stakeholders

Describe the range of relevant authorities and stakeholders involved in the risk assessment process.

If appropriate
  : Describe the nature of their involvement, specifying their roles and responsibilities.

When producing a risk assessment, it is important to involve a range of relevant stakeholders in the process. This encourages them to contribute to the disaster risk management process. Relevant authorities and stakeholders can include national and regional authorities including those which do not contribute directly to the assessment process, such as academia, research organisations and the private sector.

Q3 Identifying the key risks at national or sub-national level

Identify the key risks (16) that could have significant adverse human, economic, environmental and political/social impacts (including security).

Please identify the key risks at national or sub-national level.

If appropriate:
  Describe which methods/sources of data were used to identify the key risks at national and/or appropriate sub-national level. Where applicable, please state whether the identification of a risk was based on one or more different scenarios related to the main event, or on an overall probabilistic analysis at national level. Where applicable, state whether a multi-hazard approach was taken in the scenario/risk model building and risk identification of existing key risks (i.e. which cascading effects of disasters were considered).

Risk identification is the process of finding, recognising and describing risks, possibly in probabilistic terms. It is a screening exercise and serves as a preliminary step leading on to the subsequent risk analysis stage. Risk identification should be based as much as possible on quantitative (historical and recent statistical) data. However, it would be advisable to make use of scenario-building processes and model projections to identify also future risks. Alternative solutions should ideally be found for addressing risks which are difficult to measure or where information linked to the risk may be classified. Sometimes, only risks will be identified at this stage. This means identifying types of events that may happen in a given territory in a given timeframe. Usually, however, the risk identification stage already looks at the consequences (potential impacts) of the hazards or risk occurrences. Data on the impacts can be collected in a qualitative way (e.g. through expert opinions, intelligence information, inductive reasoning techniques and others).

Different risks require different analyses. The probability is generally easier to estimate for natural hazards, given their historical precedents. Probability can be assessed qualitatively (very high, high, medium, low, very low probability) or quantitatively (the return period, probability of occurrence in 1 year, 5 years, 100 years, etc.). For some risks, it is not possible to establish how likely an event is to occur, and alternative estimates should be sought where appropriate. The probability of an event or risk occurrence should, where possible, be assessed according to the historical frequency of events on a similar scale and on the basis of available statistical data relevant to an analysis of the main drivers, which can help identify accelerating trends, such as those associated with climate change. For example, geological data could help in extending the investigation time window for some risks (e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis).

The level of impact should also be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively (17). Impact analysis should rely as much as possible on empirical evidence and experience from past disaster data or established quantitative models of impact. Where possible, the impacts of each risk occurrence or hazard should be assessed in terms of significant adverse impacts on four categories: human impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts, political/social impacts (including security impacts). The categories and criteria of the different impacts can be summarised as follows:

| — | human impacts, taking into account fatalities, missing people, injured and sick people, and people who need to be evacuated or who lose access to basic services. The criteria are usually quantified; |
| --- | --- |

—

human impacts, taking into account fatalities, missing people, injured and sick people, and people who need to be evacuated or who lose access to basic services. The criteria are usually quantified;

| — | economic impacts, taking into account financial and material losses, as well as economical losses from various sectors of the economy. The criteria are usually quantified. When possible, indirect economic losses should be estimated; |
| --- | --- |

—

economic impacts, taking into account financial and material losses, as well as economical losses from various sectors of the economy. The criteria are usually quantified. When possible, indirect economic losses should be estimated;

| — | environmental impacts, taking into account impact on natural resources, protected areas and habitats (forests, terrestrial biodiversity, aquatic, marine ecosystems, etc.), natural and urban environments. Impacts on cultural heritage can be included in this category (18). The criteria are usually qualitative, but they may also be quantitative, based on the cost of losses or recovery, or assessed qualitatively, based on the extent of the damage or the time taken to revert to the original state; |
| --- | --- |

—

environmental impacts, taking into account impact on natural resources, protected areas and habitats (forests, terrestrial biodiversity, aquatic, marine ecosystems, etc.), natural and urban environments. Impacts on cultural heritage can be included in this category (18). The criteria are usually qualitative, but they may also be quantitative, based on the cost of losses or recovery, or assessed qualitatively, based on the extent of the damage or the time taken to revert to the original state;

| — | political/social impacts (including security), taking into account the disruption of daily life/use of critical facilities (energy, health, education, etc.), water and food security, social unrest, threats to social security, and the capacity to govern and control the country. Sometimes this category includes psychological effects. The criteria are usually qualitative. |
| --- | --- |

—

political/social impacts (including security), taking into account the disruption of daily life/use of critical facilities (energy, health, education, etc.), water and food security, social unrest, threats to social security, and the capacity to govern and control the country. Sometimes this category includes psychological effects. The criteria are usually qualitative.

Within each category of impact (human, economic, environmental, and political/social), the relative importance of individual impacts should be graded using a single set of criteria to score the relative impact applicable to different risks or risk scenarios. The human impact should be measured in terms of the number of people affected, while the economic impact should be measured in the national currency. The environmental impacts should, whenever possible, be quantified in economic terms, but they may also be classed in non-quantitative terms, e.g. (1) limited / insignificant, (2) minor / substantial, (3) moderate / serious, (4) significant / very serious, (5) catastrophic / disastrous. The political / social impact (including security impacts) can also be measured on a similar qualitative scale. Quantitative analysis can define the scale of the impact level (very low, low, moderate, high, or very high) in numerical terms.

Where possible, assessing the impacts should be aligned to the goals, targets and reporting guidelines of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai Framework) (19).

These four categories of impact can be considered in the short and the medium term, additionally there may be strong interdependencies under certain circumstances, such as the number of people killed and injured by buildings collapsing as a result of earthquakes. These four categories of impact, could, where applicable, be considered when assessing the impact of any analysed event, or risk, including the key risks identified in Q3, which also include key risks with cross-border impacts, those with a low probability and high impact, and where appropriate, key future and emerging risks. The four categories can also be used in developing risk scenarios and multi-risk assessments (described below) at the risk identification and risk analysis stages.

Several methods and techniques can be used to identify key risks (20). These may include risk criteria, evidence-based methods, reviews of geological, historical, and statistical data, checklists, intelligence information, systematic team approaches (where a team of experts follow a systematic process to identify risks by means of a structured set of prompts or questions), and inductive reasoning techniques. Techniques to make the risk identification process more comprehensive exist (21).

Risk scenario analysis can be useful to identify potential key risks, where appropriate, including future and/or emerging key risks, key risks with a cross-border impact and key risks with low probability and high impact. It also offers a way to communicate about how to obtain a picture of future uncertainties and factors influencing decisions that have to be taken today.

National risk analyses may strive to consider not only analysis of single-risk models/scenarios (if those have been built in the risk identification phase), but also some multi-risk scenarios or models.

A multi-risk approach entails a multi-hazard and multi-vulnerability perspective. A multi-risk assessment incorporates possible amplifications and cascading effects arising from interaction with other risks. In other words, one risk may be increased through another risk, or because another kind of event has significantly altered the system’s vulnerability or exposure. The multi-vulnerability perspective refers to the variety of sensitive targets exposed to risk, such as population, transport systems and infrastructure, buildings and cultural heritage. These potential targets exhibit different types of vulnerability to the various hazards and require different types of capacities to prevent and cope with hazards.

A multi-risk scenario analysis usually takes into consideration the following elements:

| — | identification of possible multi-risk scenarios, starting with a given event and evaluating the possibility that other risks or events may be triggered. |
| --- | --- |

—

identification of possible multi-risk scenarios, starting with a given event and evaluating the possibility that other risks or events may be triggered.

| — | exposure and vulnerability analysis for each individual risk within the different branches of the scenarios, as well as the interdependencies of hazards and vulnerabilities. |
| --- | --- |

—

exposure and vulnerability analysis for each individual risk within the different branches of the scenarios, as well as the interdependencies of hazards and vulnerabilities.

| — | risk estimate for each adverse event and for multi-risk scenarios. Software tools such as Decision Support System (DSS) for mapping multiple risk scenarios can be used to help visualise, provide information on and run scenarios. |
| --- | --- |

—

risk estimate for each adverse event and for multi-risk scenarios. Software tools such as Decision Support System (DSS) for mapping multiple risk scenarios can be used to help visualise, provide information on and run scenarios.

These guidelines are not intended to promote a particular way of dealing with multi-risk scenarios or models; rather, they highlight some good practices described in the literature, such as NaTech accidents involving earthquakes, lightning and floods.

Q3.1 Identifying key risks with a cross-border impact

Any key risks which could have significant adverse cross-border impacts, coming from or affecting the neighbouring country or countries.

Where applicable, state whether a multi-hazard approach was applied when building the scenario and identifying key risks with cross-border impacts. For instance, indicate if cascading effects of disasters were considered.

The identification of key risks with a potential cross-border impact and the estimation of their respective impacts might consider: i) impacts resulting from risks generated in a neighbouring country or countries ii) impacts that spill over into a neighbouring country or countries iii) impacts affecting two or more countries simultaneously. When we consider impacts on a neighbouring country or countries, it is not to assess potential impacts qualitatively or quantitatively, but rather in order to imagine whether any adverse impacts might ensue (e.g. an ash cloud from a volcano interfering with neighbouring countries’ airspace).

Q3.2 Identifying key risks with low probability and high impact

Any key risks with a low probability but a high impact.

Where applicable, indicate whether a multi-hazard approach was taken into account in the scenario-building and risk identification of key risks with low probability and high impact. For instance, please indicate if cascading effects of disasters were considered.

Member States are asked to set the criteria for defining the key risks with low probability and a high impact in their national or sub-national context. A risk with low probability and a high impact may not necessarily be considered as a key risk if the event concerned is very unlikely to occur. Whether there are any low probability risks with a high impact under key risks is therefore dependent on Member States’ definitions of “key risks”.

Q3.3 Identifying key future and/or emerging risks

Where appropriate

  , identify any key risks expected in future. These may include any emerging risks that could have significant adverse human, economic, environmental and political/social impacts (including impacts on security).

Identifying the key future risks, including new emerging risks, could help improve the management of future risks through appropriate prevention and preparedness measures. In the case of climate change-related future and emerging risks, the risk assessment should, where appropriate, take account of climate change projections and scenarios based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, or on other validated scientific sources. Where existing, national climate risks and vulnerability assessments provide relevant projections of climate hazards and risks. Climate-change related future and emerging risks should be consistent with the risks indicated in the National Adaptation Strategy and/or Plan and climate risk and vulnerability assessments, where those have been performed.

The Commission’s publication ‘Science for Environmental Policy’ considers as emerging risks (22), risks that may be:

| — | new risks;






  — | difficult to assess (with traditional risk assessment and management approaches) likelihood of harm; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

new risks;

—

difficult to assess (with traditional risk assessment and management approaches) likelihood of harm;

| — | difficult to foresee, i.e. it is difficult to assess the probability that a certain consequence will occur at a specific time / place / condition; |
| --- | --- |

—

difficult to foresee, i.e. it is difficult to assess the probability that a certain consequence will occur at a specific time / place / condition;

| — | risks resulting from a newly identified hazard to which a significant exposure may occur, or from an unexpected new or increased significant exposure and/or susceptibility to a known hazard; |
| --- | --- |

—

risks resulting from a newly identified hazard to which a significant exposure may occur, or from an unexpected new or increased significant exposure and/or susceptibility to a known hazard;

| — | new or familiar risks that become apparent in new or under unfamiliar conditions. |
| --- | --- |

—

new or familiar risks that become apparent in new or under unfamiliar conditions.

Definitions of emerging risks also include the concept of newly created risks; newly identified/ noticed risks; increasing risk, or risk becoming widely known or established.

If appropriate
  : Outline the methods, models and techniques used to identify and assess future risks and/or emerging risks and their potential impacts, taking into consideration climate change-related risk scenarios and projections, the national adaptation strategy and/or plan (23) and climate risk and vulnerability assessments, if such assessments have been made. The future climate scenarios used and their projections could be short-term (2030); medium-term (2050) and long-term (2100), where appropriate.

A multi-risk modelling approach might be considered to capture the dynamic nature and various interactions of the risk-related processes driven by both climate change and social, economic, environmental and demographic parameters. Scenario-building is also a method applied to identifying future and/or emerging risks. It is not limited just to estimating future climate change impacts.

Where applicable
  , indicate whether a multi-hazard approach was taken in building scenarios and identifying the risks associated with future and emerging key risks. Please, also indicate if cascading effects of disasters considered.

Q4 Identifying climate change impacts

Determine which of the above-mentioned key risks are directly linked to climate change effects. Please take into consideration the existing national and sub-national climate change adaptation strategy and/or plan (24) or any relevant and climate risk and vulnerability assessments, where appropriate.

This question can be combined with identifying key future and/or emerging risks (Q3.3), if applicable.

If appropriate
  : Describe which methods and data sources were used to identify the key existing risks that are or can be influenced by climate change.

Q5 Risk analysis

Describe the scale of levels of probability and impact of the key risks identified (in Q3,) including the key cross-border and key risks with a low probability and a high impact and, where appropriate, future and/or emerging risks.

Display the results in a single risk matrix or other visualised graph/model as well, if applicable.

If appropriate:

  Outline the methods, models and techniques used to assess the probability and impacts of the different risks or risk scenarios.

Once risks are identified, the probability that they will materialise and the severity of their potential impacts are measured using a set of categories that measure the risk factors (measurement should ideally be quantitative). The categories of impact that can be considered are human, economic, environmental and political/social (including security), as described in Q3. This is often described in terms of the ‘probability’ and ‘impact’ of a scenario or a risk occurrence. The results are usually presented in a risk matrix or in probabilistic maps.

A risk matrix relates the probability dimension to that of impact and is a graphical representation of different risks that allows them to be compared. Such a matrix depicts the multiple risks identified, thereby making comparison easier. Risk matrices may be used at all stages of risk assessments (for current, future or/and emerging, cross-border and key risks with low probability and high impact). The scales used for probability and impact usually have five levels (Figure 1), though this can vary. The colours within the matrix can also be assigned differently, depending on a country’s individual risk perception.

Image 1

Figure 1: Risk matrix (symmetrical, 5x5)

A number of Member States use the risk matrix. They may consider producing different risk matrices for human, economic, environmental and political/social impact (including security impact), as these categories are measured with distinct scales and would otherwise be difficult to compare, especially if some are assessed quantitatively and others qualitatively. To facilitate a more comprehensive overview at EU level, Member States could preferably use a 5x5 risk matrix, if appropriate, with scale levels of impacts and probability indicated. Where possible, Member States are encouraged to assign quantitative ranges to each of the numbers from 1 to 5.

Risk analysis has to take into account the uncertainties associated with analysing risks, and address data and model uncertainties. A sensitivity analysis involves ascertaining the size and significance of the magnitude of risks to changes in individual input parameters.

When a risk is likely to have substantial and irreversible consequences but its likelihood cannot be accurately assessed, the precautionary principle can justify including it in the risk analysis. This especially concerns risks to the environment and health (human, animal and plant diseases). The precautionary principle may be applied as a first step towards risk management. Temporary decisions may need to be taken on the basis of qualitative or inconclusive evidence. Where the precautionary principle is applied, additional efforts should be made to improve the evidence base.

Q6 Risk mapping

State whether any risk maps have been produced showing the expected spatial distribution of the key risks as identified at the identification and analysis stage (Q3, Q4 and Q5). If so, include them as appropriate.

Distribution of risks varies across a country, because of different risk occurrences, exposure of people and assets and uneven vulnerability. Risk maps are a useful tool for identifying the areas most at risk across the country. Different types of maps can be produced, depending on national or sub-national needs: simple maps of key risks, including key risks with a cross-border impact; key risks with a low probability and a high impact; and, where appropriate, future and/or emerging risks. In addition, loss maps can be produced to demonstrate where potential losses for a given risk are potentially higher, given the distribution of exposure and vulnerability, etc.

The different key risks should ideally be presented in separate maps or thematic risk maps (e.g. categorised by key risks with a cross-border impact, future and/or emerging risks, and key risks with low probability and a high impact). If possible, they could show the spatial distribution of vulnerability and exposure to damage, marked as very high, high, medium, low and very low risk levels.

These risk maps could show the spatial distribution of all relevant aspects needing protection at national or regional level, such as: population, vital infrastructure, such as water, electricity, gas and oil production; transport and distribution; telecommunications; agriculture; financial and security services; hospitals; schools; environmentally protected areas and habitats (Natura 2000 areas, marine protected areas, national parks, forests, maritime and terrestrial biodiversity, river basins); cultural heritage assets (archaeological sites, monuments, parks etc.); and other significant economic activities (factories, businesses, energy facilities, agricultural production, livestock, tourist areas and businesses), etc.

Such information can be brought together using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or web platforms. If this exists, please provide relevant link as appropriate.

Q7 Monitoring and reviewing of risk assessment

Outline the system in place for monitoring and reviewing risk assessment so as to factor in new developments.

As part of the disaster risk management process, risks should be regularly monitored and reviewed to verify that:

| — | assumptions about risks remain valid (including input data), |
| --- | --- |

—

assumptions about risks remain valid (including input data),

| — | assumptions on which risk assessment is based, including the external and internal context, remain valid, |
| --- | --- |

—

assumptions on which risk assessment is based, including the external and internal context, remain valid,

| — | the results expected are being achieved, |
| --- | --- |

—

the results expected are being achieved,

| — | the results of risk assessment are in line with actual experience, |
| --- | --- |

—

the results of risk assessment are in line with actual experience,

| — | risk assessment techniques are being properly applied, |
| --- | --- |

—

risk assessment techniques are being properly applied,

| — | risk treatment (risk prevention and preparedness implementing measures) is effective. |
| --- | --- |

—

risk treatment (risk prevention and preparedness implementing measures) is effective.

Q8 Communicating risk assessment results

Describe the process of communicating and disseminating the results of the national risk assessment. Outline how the risk assessment results are shared among policy-makers, various public authorities with different types of responsibility, different levels of administration, and other relevant stakeholders. State whether and how the general public are informed about the results of risk assessment, to make them aware of risks in their country or region and/or enable them to take informed decisions to protect themselves.

Proper communication of results enables risk assessments to be used in decision-making. The ultimate purpose of communicating risks is to enable people at risk to take informed decisions to protect themselves, and to raise their risk awareness. Risk communication also means sharing information, advice and opinions between experts and people facing threats to their health and/or their economic or social well-being. Non-government actors also rely on accurate risk assessments. For example, chemical industries often need to be informed about technological risks. In addition, the implementation of the right-to-know principle now enshrined in many national and international laws and regulations has meant that many assessment procedures now include public participation. This development has created a need for a systematic approach to risk communication in public policy implementation.

Part II. Risk management capability assessment

2.1.   Introduction

Article 6(1) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU states: ‘In order to promote an effective and coherent approach to the prevention of and preparedness for disasters by sharing non-sensitive information, (...), and to promote the exchange of best practices within the Union Mechanism, Member States shall: (...) (b) further develop the assessment of risk management capability at national or appropriate sub-national level’.

Member States are invited to assess, in view of their technical, financial and administrative capacity, their capability to carry out adequate risk assessments and risk management planning and to implement prevention and preparedness measures.

These guidelines set out a structure for a summary of each country’s risk management capability assessment. The proposed structure is not exhaustive and will need to be adapted to the needs of each Member State. This exercise should be regarded as a common starting point, designed to foster a shared understanding of the aspects that the national risk management capability assessment should include. The summary should focus on the key risks identified in Part I.

2.2.   Guidance for responding to questions 9 – 20 of the Template (Part II)

Q9 Legislative, procedural and/or institutional framework

Describe the framework in place for the risk management capability assessment process(es). State whether it is based on a legal act, a strategic plan, an implementation plan or other procedural frameworks.

If appropriate

  : State how often the risk management capability is assessed and whether the risk management capability assessment(s) is used for decision-making purposes.

This question is intended to clarify the legislative, procedural and/or institutional context at national or sub-national level (whichever applies) that formalises the risk management capability assessment process(es) for prevention, preparedness and response. If the legislative framework in place is the same as the one described in response to Q1, reference can be made to answers given to Q1. If the reply differs from the reply to Q1, Member States are asked to specify whether the risk management capability assessment process(es) has a legal basis or whether it is based on a strategic plan, an implementation plan or other legislative/procedural frameworks, and whether it is based on or follows from the risk assessment.

If appropriate
  : Please mention any foreseeable plans to develop the legislative framework. Please indicate how frequently the risk management capability assessment is conducted at national or, if appropriate, at sub-national level and/or describe whether this assessment(s) is used for decision-making purposes. For instance, please indicate if it feeds into the risk management planning process and/or the implementation of prevention and preparedness measures, and if this is used to help understand vulnerabilities as part of the risk assessment.

Q10 Roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities

Describe the roles and responsibilities of the competent authorities at national or sub-national level (as appropriate), distinguishing between risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, and response, and focusing on the management of the key risks identified.

Describe how horizontal coordination (the cross-sectoral approach) is ensured among these competent authorities, focusing on the management of the key risks identified.

For the key risks identified, the management capacities and roles/responsibilities of the competent authorities and bodies should be clearly assigned for all stages of the disaster risk management cycle (assessment, prevention, preparedness and response). A graphic could be included to visualise the horizontal coordination. Please also name the authority that plays the role of 24/7 emergency contact point at national level and to describe how this role is integrated into the overall management structure.

Member States should explain how these roles and responsibilities are enforced (e.g. through legislation and/or procedural policies) and what is done to ensure efficient management (e.g. to avoid overlaps and gaps between areas of responsibility). Please describe what measures are in place to ensure cooperation among these competent authorities at different stages of the disaster risk management cycle (assessment, prevention, preparedness and response), and any lessons learned, focusing on the management of the key risks.

When the management of roles and responsibilities of competent authorities requires a cross-sectoral approach (e.g. Integration of climate change adaptation, Q14), Member States are asked to take note of existing EU legislation and/or policies (see Annex).

Q11 Roles of relevant stakeholders

State whether relevant stakeholders are informed about and involved in the disaster risk management process(es) for the key risks identified. If they are, describe how.

The capability to manage risks depends increasingly on involving and cooperating with various public and private stakeholders, including disaster management agencies, health services, fire-fighting units, police forces, transport/electricity/communication operators, voluntary organisations, citizens/volunteers, private landowners, the insurance sector, academia and research institutes, the armed forces, or organisations in other countries (for transnational disaster risk management). EU legislation recognises that ‘disaster risk prevention and management imply the need to design and implement disaster risk management measures that involve the coordination of a wide range of actors’ (25).

Please state whether this cooperation is ensured in risk assessment process(es) for identified key risks, the disaster risk management planning processes and as appropriate, the implementation of prevention and preparedness measures. If so, describe how.

If appropriate
  : please mention how public and private stakeholders are informed and how information sharing (including lessons learnt and data sharing) is established. Reference can be made to answers given to Q8.

Q12 Procedures and measures at national, sub-national and local level

Describe the established procedures to ensure vertical cooperation between the national, sub-national and local level authorities involved in disaster risk management process(es) for the identified key risks.

Member States should explain procedures and measures to ensure vertical coordination among the national, sub-national and local levels for the key risks identified.

The process of planning prevention and preparedness measures needs to define procedures to help reduce risk nationally, sub-nationally and locally. As Recital 14 of Decision (EU) 2019/420 (26) notes, regional and local authorities can play an important preventive role; moreover, they are the first to respond to a disaster, together with their volunteers. Member States are therefore asked to state what agreed mechanisms of cooperation exist, including the decision-making procedures that help to define prioritisation of risks and regional plans, plus any financial arrangements for assistance.

If appropriate:
  Please describe the disaster risk management measures that are in place for the identified key risks at various governance levels. This may be illustrated with a table showing the key risks identified.

Q13 Procedures and measures at cross-border, inter-regional and international level

Describe the procedures established to ensure cooperation at the cross-border, inter-regional and international levels for the disaster risk management of identified key risks. Describe measures in place to ensure disaster risk management for the key risks identified.

If appropriate

  : State whether disaster risk management policies are developed in a way that takes account of international commitments, such as the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Taking account of international cooperation and the recent revision of UCPM Decision No 1313/2013/EU (particularly the Recital 28 of Decision (EU) 2019/420 (27)), the purpose of this section is to explore if and how engagement at cross-border, inter-regional and international level is ensured.

Member States are asked to describe whether there is any cross-border (28), inter-regional and international cooperation in the pre-disaster phase and, if so, what form it takes (prevention and preparedness). Please explain how this cooperation is ensured (e.g. memoranda of understanding or service-level agreements). Please also state whether there is any joint implementation of preparedness measures (e.g. early warning systems or joint training sessions and exercises) to ensure rapid and effective disaster response when the key risks identified materialise.

When managing prevention, preparedness and response measures requires a cross-sectoral approach (e.g. Integration of climate change adaptation, Q14), reference can be made to existing EU legislation (see Annex).

The Sendai Framework (29) endorsed by the UN General Assembly is a voluntary non-binding agreement, through which national governments have committed themselves to preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk by reducing exposure and vulnerability while stepping up preparedness, resulting in improved overall resilience. The Sustainable Development Goals (30) adopted in 2015 by a UN Summit define 17 goals (31) for sustainable development. Implementation of both agendas requires a solid framework of indicators to monitor progress towards reducing disaster risk. Specifically, there are 38 indicators to track progress in implementing the 7 targets under the Sendai Framework and 17 goals and 169 targets are defined to achieve sustainable development under the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Commission is engaged in implementing both agendas and has developed action plans (32) and reflection papers (33) to follow up progress towards meeting those targets. If appropriate, Member States are asked to describe how their disaster risk management policies will help achieve the goals of those two agendas.

Q14 Focus on climate change adaptation measures

State whether synergies between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures are established at national or sub-national level (as appropriate) for the key risks identified that are linked to climate change (Q4). If so, describe how.

Considering recent revision of the UCPM legislation, namely the fact that ‘all actions should be coherent with, and actively contribute to, meeting international commitments such as (...) the Paris Agreement under the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (...)’ (34), the purpose of this question is to explore if and how synergies are ensured between climate change adaptation and national prevention and preparedness measures.

Climate change adaptation can support efforts to prevent climate-related disasters. Cost-effective adaptation measures require good coordination at various levels of planning and management. Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, national adaptation strategies and plans are the recommended instrument for adaptation policies and actions. Member States are asked to refer to such strategies and describe if and how these are integrated with the planning of national disaster risk prevention and preparedness measures or vice-versa. If the management of prevention, preparedness and response measures requires a cross-sectoral approach, reference can be made to existing EU legislation (see Annex).

Q15 Focus on critical infrastructure protection measures

State whether measures are in place to protect critical infrastructure regarded as relevant for the continuation of vital societal functions.

In view of the recent amendment of the UCPM Decision, in particular Recital 8 of Decision (EU) 2019/420 (35), and of Article 7(1) of the European Critical Infrastructure Directive (36), the purpose of this question is to explore if and how prevention and preparedness measures to protect critical infrastructure are being implemented.

Member States are asked to state whether there is a critical infrastructure policy in place. Please state whether a list of relevant national critical infrastructure is compiled and regularly reviewed as part of this policy, and if investment needs are identified for the protection of critical infrastructure. If managing prevention, preparedness and response measures for critical infrastructure requires a cross-sectoral approach, reference can be made to existing EU legislation (see Annex).

Q16 Source(s) of financing

State whether the budget allows for resources to be allocated flexibly in case of urgent need and to what extent disaster funds promote preventive action.

Describe the funding sources used (e.g. national, sub-national, public, private, including insurance, EU and other international funding) to take priority measures in the field of disaster risk management when assessing, preventing, preparing for and responding to the key risks identified.

The various forms of financial support the EU makes available for prevention and preparedness measures should be mentioned, if used. They include the Cohesion policy funds, the Common Agriculture Policy, the LIFE programme (37), the Internal Security Fund (38), Horizon 2020 (39), the UCPM multi-country prevention and preparedness grants and the newly introduced direct grants. The EU Structural Reform Support Programme (40) may also be used for capacity building purposes and development of policy frameworks and instruments.

Financial means should be available and quickly accessible in the event of emergency situations as identified in risk assessment and planning. Please describe how budgetary and legal questions related to flexible resource allocation are dealt with in the implementation process (which managing authorities are involved) and state whether there are any plans to share the financial burden (EU or international funding available). The management structure of financing sources can be illustrated with a graphic.

Please also state whether any agreements with stakeholders (such as from private sector, insurance) are being sought or in place to cover these costs. Please state whether there are any national disaster funds or schemes (e.g. emergency fund, financial risk transfer mechanisms), and if they are linked to climate change impacts, where relevant.

Q17 Infrastructure, assets and equipment

Describe what is done to ensure that enough assets are available to mitigate the impact of disasters and respond promptly to disasters associated with the key risks identified.

Please report on the capacity to ensure that adequate infrastructure, assets and equipment are in place to mitigate the impact of disasters and respond promptly to disasters. State whether there are any procedures to keep assets in ‘good order’ and up-to-date (through regular maintenance or an inventory of assets, for instance) for the key risks identified.

If appropriate
  : Please also state whether preparedness and response capabilities are being developed to respond to individual risks, or whether they are being developed, irrespective of risk, to respond primarily to the impact of such risks (e.g. search and rescue, evacuation, sheltering and hospitalisation of injured and sick people).

Q18 Focus on disaster loss data collection and procedures

State whether a system is in place to collect disaster loss data. Describe how data is collected on the key risks identified.

Data and statistics are important in understanding the impacts and costs of disasters. Systematic data collection and analysis can be used to inform policy decisions to help reduce disaster risks and build resilience. Disaster loss databases allow disaster risk managers to explore patterns and trends in disaster risk on the basis of past events. Understanding these patterns and trends can help in anticipating future losses from extensive events (frequent events) and in understanding whether disaster risk management is effective in reducing this kind of risk. At European level, the Joint Research Centre started developing the Risk Data Hub (41). The methodologies used to collect data for disaster-related datasets vary, as do the geographic scope and resolution of such data. At international level, similar efforts are under development in the context of monitoring the implementation of the Sendai Framework (42).

Please state what methods are being developed to report damage (including human loss), and whether the data are collected by risk or by disaster loss type (economic, human, other). Please state: whether these data are shared with stakeholders and members of the public; whether stakeholders contribute to the damage reporting and/or to estimating costs; whether the instances of damage are documented and stored regularly or occasionally; what time period is covered; and whether these reports are made available to the public.

If managing disaster loss data requires a cross-sectoral approach, including requirements under the Inspire directive (43), reference can be made to existing EU legislation (see Annex).

Q19 Focus on early warning systems equipment and procedures

Describe the systems in place for early hazard detection and monitoring of the key risks identified. State whether forecasting methodologies are integrated into the system.

Early warning is a major component of disaster risk reduction. It refers to the systematic collection and analysis of information, to anticipate and identify emerging or recurring risks. Member States are asked to describe the systems in place for the early hazard detection and monitoring of the key risks identified and whether such systems incorporate forecasting methodologies.

There are several early warning systems at both global (e.g. Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (44)) and European level. Copernicus Emergency Management Service (45) provides information for emergency response in relation to different types of disasters, including meteorological hazards, geophysical hazards, deliberate and accidental man-made disasters and other humanitarian disasters. The information can also be used for prevention, preparedness, and recovery activities. They include the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) (46), the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) (47) and the European Drought Observatory (EDO) (48). More recently, the European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange (ECURIE) (49) provides for an early notification and exchange of information in the event of a radiological or nuclear emergency.

Member States are asked to state whether national early warning systems are connected to the early warning systems available at European and global level, and, if so, how. Please also state whether and, if so, how links are established among meteorological and seismic monitoring departments, both nationally and regionally (if available), and key national entities or academic institutions that consistently track disasters. Reference can be made to answers given to Q18.

If managing prevention, preparedness and response measures for early warning systems requires a cross-sectoral approach (e.g. early warning systems for cross-border threats to health (50), the Floods Directive (51)), reference can be made to existing EU legislation (see Annex).

Q20 Risk information and communication to raise public awareness

Describe how the public is informed of what action to take when facing risks. For example, state whether there is a strategy to educate the public and raise awareness. State whether and how target groups are involved in the definition of prevention and preparedness measures and in the implementation of the risk information and communication activities.

Citizens should be involved in implementing prevention and preparedness measures in two priority areas: education on risk, and public awareness and information, including the correct interpretation of warning signals and taking appropriate steps to reduce vulnerability and exposure, and protect oneself. ‘Progress in increasing public awareness and preparedness for disasters, measured by the level of awareness of Union citizens of the risks in their region’ (52) is an indicator to be used in monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the implementation of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

Managing complex risks requires effective information and communication systems for the implementation of prevention and preparedness measures, so as to take account of the needs of individual communities and the specific needs of highly vulnerable groups (such as those with different diverse cultural, social or educational backgrounds). Mass media (radio, television), alternative media, and public awareness and education campaigns can be effective in raising public awareness of risks.

Member States are asked to state whether there are rules and procedures to ensure information sharing, communication with and training of policy-makers, relevant stakeholders, citizens, including specific vulnerable groups, to increase public awareness of the key risks through different media (e.g. social media, etc.). Reference can be made to answers given to Q9. Please also describe how citizens are informed before, during and after a disaster strikes and if any good practices have been developed.

An ‘early warning’ system must provide timely and effective information to mitigate the impact of a disaster on populations. Warning messages and signals to the public must be effective. Please describe what is done to make sure that communities at risk understand early warning signals and that they are aware of the steps they need to take to protect themselves. In high-risk areas, there should be regular drills to ensure a constant state of preparedness. Please describe relevant measures in place.

Part III. Priority prevention and preparedness measures for key risks with cross-border impacts and, where appropriate, for low probability risks with a high impact

3.1.   Introduction

Various prevention and preparedness measures are planned and implemented to manage and reduce the risks identified through the national or appropriate sub-national risk assessment. As risks do not stop at borders, cross-border disaster risk management is crucial to increase resilience throughout Europe.

Descriptions of priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing key risks with a cross-border impact should not be restricted to measures implemented and planned by the civil protection authorities. Please also take into account priority measures implemented and planned by other relevant departments or bodies. Moreover, the measures described should not be limited to those resulting from cooperation between countries (‘cross-border measures’); rather, they should include priority prevention and preparedness measures implemented and planned to tackle the risk as a whole.

Descriptions of priority prevention and preparedness measures should also include low probability high impact risks. Where appropriate, Member States are encouraged to share information on prevention and preparedness measures for those risks.

3.2.   Guidance for responding to questions 21 – 24 of the Template (Part III)

Member States should select what they consider to be key risks with cross-border impacts from among those identified in Part I (Risk assessment). Depending on the approach, key risks could be defined as those with a high probability and a high impact. The term could also be interpreted as meaning key risks evaluated as having an impact and probability level that may be considered ‘unacceptable’ (‘intolerable’) and should be prioritised in terms of risk treatment. For certain Member States, some key risks might therefore be ‘unacceptable’ if rated ‘high-impact’, even if their probability is low. The guidance provided here does not prescribe how Member States should interpret the concept of a ‘key risk’ or how they should address prioritisation.

In accordance with the requirements of reporting under Article 6(1)d, please identify which of these key risks have potential cross-border impacts. Please consider:

| — | impacts resulting from risks generated in a neighbouring country or neighbouring countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

impacts resulting from risks generated in a neighbouring country or neighbouring countries;

| — | impacts that spill over into a neighbouring country or countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

impacts that spill over into a neighbouring country or countries;

| — | impacts affecting two or more countries simultaneously. |
| --- | --- |

—

impacts affecting two or more countries simultaneously.

Q21 Key risks with cross-border impacts

List the key risks with cross-border impacts.

These are the risks for which priority prevention and preparedness measures will be reported, based on Q 3.1 of Part I (Risk assessment).

Q22 Priority prevention and preparedness measures

Priority prevention and preparedness measures can be identified by the expected positive impact they are having or will have in terms of risk reduction (how effective they are). Priority measures can also be those that are most urgent in terms of addressing a certain risk. They can be understood as ‘flagship measures’. Sometimes they may have been taken after a particularly severe disaster. How have ‘priority prevention and preparedness measures’ been defined in this context?

Prevention and preparedness measures can be either structural or non-structural:

| — | structural measures: ‘structural measures are any physical construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, or the application of engineering techniques or technology to achieve hazard resistance and resilience in structures or systems.’ (53) These can include population relocation, modification of the natural environment when justified (e.g. slope terracing), nature-based solutions (e.g. natural water retention measures), or forest management practices (e.g. forest conversion, fire breaks, controlled fires); |
| --- | --- |

—

structural measures: ‘structural measures are any physical construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, or the application of engineering techniques or technology to achieve hazard resistance and resilience in structures or systems.’ (53) These can include population relocation, modification of the natural environment when justified (e.g. slope terracing), nature-based solutions (e.g. natural water retention measures), or forest management practices (e.g. forest conversion, fire breaks, controlled fires);

| — | non-structural measures: ‘non-structural measures are measures not involving physical construction which use knowledge, practice or agreement to reduce disaster risks and impacts, in particular through policies and laws, public awareness raising, training and education.’ (54) |
| --- | --- |

—

non-structural measures: ‘non-structural measures are measures not involving physical construction which use knowledge, practice or agreement to reduce disaster risks and impacts, in particular through policies and laws, public awareness raising, training and education.’ (54)

Measures can be either implemented or planned measures:

| — | implemented measures means ongoing measures which are currently reducing disaster risk (or are intended to); |
| --- | --- |

—

implemented measures means ongoing measures which are currently reducing disaster risk (or are intended to);

| — | planned measures are measures which will definitely be carried out, either because funding has already been secured or because they are part of an approved and binding plan or strategy. If appropriate, these can be contrasted with (but should be differentiated from) measures that should ideally be taken to reduce risk (but are not planned so far). |
| --- | --- |

—

planned measures are measures which will definitely be carried out, either because funding has already been secured or because they are part of an approved and binding plan or strategy. If appropriate, these can be contrasted with (but should be differentiated from) measures that should ideally be taken to reduce risk (but are not planned so far).

For some risks, Member States are already reporting on prevention and preparedness measures under different EU laws and policies. If reporting on priority prevention and preparedness measures for this risk is already required by EU legislation or policies, please refer to any reports already sent to the Commission (see Annex). Please only refer to documents that include both prevention and preparedness measures - if one (or both) of the elements is missing, they should be included under Question 22.1 or 22.2.

Q22.1 Priority prevention measures

Describe existing priority prevention measures and any that are planned.

As part of this, please describe both structural and non-structural measures, as appropriate (see explanations above).

For the priority prevention measures, please describe, where applicable:

| — | authorities/ institutions responsible; |
| --- | --- |

—

authorities/ institutions responsible;

| — | implementation timeline; |
| --- | --- |

—

implementation timeline;

| — | funding source(s). |
| --- | --- |

—

funding source(s).

The above elements can be grouped for multiple measures, if appropriate.

Prevention measures are measures that reduce the exposure and vulnerability of people and assets to a particular hazard or hazards, thereby preventing disaster. Decision No 1313/2013/EU defines prevention as: ‘any action aimed at reducing risks or mitigating adverse consequences of a disaster for people, the environment and property, including cultural heritage’ (55).

Examples of prevention measures ‘include dams or embankments that eliminate flood risks, land-use regulations that do not permit any settlement in high-risk zones, seismic engineering designs that ensure the survival and function of a critical building in any likely earthquake and immunisation against vaccine-preventable diseases’ (56).

Q22.2 Priority preparedness measures

Describe existing priority preparedness measures and any that are planned.

Please include both structural and non-structural measures, as appropriate (see explanations above).

For the priority preparedness measures, please describe, where applicable;

| — | authorities/institutions responsible; |
| --- | --- |

—

authorities/institutions responsible;

| — | implementation timeline; |
| --- | --- |

—

implementation timeline;

| — | funding source(s). |
| --- | --- |

—

funding source(s).

The above elements can be grouped for multiple measures if appropriate.

Preparedness measures are designed to build the capacities needed to efficiently manage all types of emergencies. Decision No 1313/2013/EU defines preparedness as: ‘a state of readiness and capability of human and material means, structures, communities and organisations enabling them to ensure an effective rapid response to a disaster, obtained as a result of action taken in advance’ (57).

Preparedness measures can be understood as including elements of crisis response/emergency management, but should not be limited to crisis response/emergency management only. For example, early warning systems and training and exercises are considered to be preparedness measures, yet they are used and in place between emergency situations as well.

Please include information for more cross border risks, as necessary, by copying the above questions.

Where appropriate:

Q23 Low probability risks with a high impact

List any low probability risks with a high impact.

On the basis of risks identified in Part I (Risk assessment), Member States should, as appropriate, identify risks which, for them, are low probability risks with a high impact. If a risk matrix is used, they are found in the top left-hand corner (low probability with a high impact). Please also consider that low probability risks with a high impact may not necessarily fall under ‘key risks’. Member States are nevertheless encouraged, where appropriate, to identify any low probability risks with a high impact and describe prevention and preparedness measures to address these risks.

Q24 Priority prevention and preparedness measures

Please see the explanation under Question 22.

If a particular low probability risk with a high impact can also be classed as a key risk with cross-border impacts, please report on priority prevention and preparedness measures just once, providing a cross-reference.

For some risks, Member States are already reporting on prevention and preparedness measures under other EU legislation and policies. If reporting on priority prevention and preparedness measures for this risk is already required by EU legislation or policies, reference can be made to existing reports (see Annex).

Please only refer to documents that include both prevention and preparedness measures - if one (or both) of the elements is missing, they should be included under Question 24.1 and/or 24.2.

Q24.1 Priority prevention measures

Describe the existing priority prevention measures and any that are planned.

Please see the explanation under Question 22.1.

Q24.2 Priority preparedness measures

Describe the
  existing
  priority preparedness measures and any that are planned.

Please see the explanation under Question 22.2.

If EU legislation or policies already require reporting on priority prevention and preparedness measures addressing this risk, please simply refer to any reports already sent to the Commission.

Please include information for more low probability risks with a high impact, as necessary, by copying the above questions.

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924.

(2)  Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019 (OJ L 77, 20.3.2019, p. 1).

(3)  Article 6(1) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(4)  Article 6(3) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(5)  Commission notice, Risk Management Capability Assessment Guidelines, (2015/C 261/03) (OJ C 261, 8.8.2015, p. 5).

(6)  Article 3.1 (a) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(7)  Commission Staff Working Paper (SEC(2010)1626 final), Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management.

(8)  See footnote 5.

(9)  See Annex on Non-exhaustive list of risks relevant under EU legislation and/or policies and Non-exhaustive list of cross-cutting areas of common interest in EU legislation and/or policies.

(10)  See Template (Q3).

(11)  Links to national adaptation strategies and action plans are also available on Climate Adapt website: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries

(12)  Commission Staff Working Paper, Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management (SEC(2010)1626 final).

(13)  Commission Staff Working Document Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union may face (SWD (2017) 176).

(14)  Risk evaluation is the process of comparing the results of risk analysis with risk criteria to ascertain whether the risk and/or its magnitude are/is acceptable. Risk criteria are the terms of reference against which the significance of a risk is evaluated. They may include associated costs and benefits, legal requirements, socioeconomic and environmental factors, concerns and stakeholders.

(15)  EU sets out specific legislative requirements in certain fields, e. g. EU Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC), EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC), EU Seveso III Directive (Directive 2012/18/EU), EU Critical Infrastructure Directive (Directive 2008/114/EC).

(16)  Member States are asked to define their own existing key risks at national or sub-national level.

(17)  Commission Staff Working Paper, Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management (SEC(2010)1626 final).

(18)  Given that there are different methodological approaches, it is acknowledged that impacts on cultural heritage may be classed either as economic impacts (if quantitative) or as environmental impacts (if qualitative). Member States should, where applicable, state how impacts on cultural heritage have been classified.

(19)  UNDRR, Technical guidance for monitoring and reporting on progress in achieving the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/54970

(20)  Annex 3 of Commission Staff Working Paper, Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management (SEC(2010)1626 final).

(21)  Joint Research Centre report on Recommendations for National Risk Assessment https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC114650/jrc114650_nrarecommendations_updatedfinal_online1.pdf

(22)  Science for Environment Policy (2016) Identifying emerging risks for environmental policies. Future Brief 13. European Commission DG Environment, http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

(23)  National adaptation strategies and plans are available on Climate Adapt website: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries

(24)  National adaptation strategies and plans are available on Climate Adapt website: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries

(25)  Recital 8 of Decision (EU) 2019/420, amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(26)  Recital 14 of Decision (EU) 2019/420, amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU states: ‘The role of regional and local authorities in disaster prevention and management is of great importance, and their response capacities need to be appropriately involved in any coordination and deployment activities (...)’.

(27)  Recital 28 of Decision (EU) 2019/420, amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU states that ‘(...) all actions should be coherent with, and actively contribute to, meeting international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, (...) and the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development’.

(28)  Cross-border prevention and preparedness measures could be referred to Q22.

(29)  Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

(30)  Sustainable Development Goals: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

(31)  The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are: 1. no poverty, 2. zero hunger, 3. good health and well-being, 4. quality education, 5. gender equality, 6. clean water and sanitation, 7. affordable and clean energy, 8. decent work and economic growth, 9. industry, innovation and infrastructure, 10. reduced inequalities, 11. sustainable cities and communities, 12. responsible consumption and production, 13. climate action, 14. life below water, 15. life on land, 16. peace, justice and strong institutions, 17. partnerships for the goals.

(32)  European Commission, Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies, (SWD(2016) 205 final/2).

(33)  European Commission, 2019 Reflection paper, Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/rp_sustainable_europe_30-01_en_web.pdf

(34)  Recital 28 of Decision (EU) 2019/420, amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(35)  Recital 8 of Decision (EU) 2019/420, amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(36)  Article 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 75).

(37)  LIFE: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life

(38)  Internal Security Fund: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-fund-police_en

(39)  Horizon 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/secure-societies-%E2%80%93-protecting-freedom-and-security-europe-and-its-citizens

(40)  EU Structural Reform Support Programme: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes/overview-funding-programmes/structural-reform-support-programme-srsp_en

(41)  Risk Data Hub: https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/risk-data-hub

(42)  https://sendaimonitor.unisdr.org/

(43)  Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1).

(44)  The Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System: http://www.gdacs.org

(45)  Copernicus Emergency Management Service: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/

(46)  The European Forest Fire Information System: http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/static/effis_current_situation/public/index.html

(47)  The European Flood Awareness System: https://www.efas.eu

(48)  The European Drought Observatory http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000

(49)  The overall goal of the platform (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/european-radiological-data-exchange-platform ) is to notify and inform competent authorities and the general public during the early phase of a large-scale accident with release of radioactivity to the atmosphere as early and extensively as possible.

(50)  Article 8(1) of Decision No 1082/2013/EU.

(51)  Article 7(3) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27).

(52)  Article 3(2)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU.

(53)  United Nations General Assembly (2016). Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction.

(54)  Ibid.

(55)  Article 4(4) of Decision 1313/2013/EU.

(56)  United Nations General Assembly (2016). Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction.

(57)  Article 4(3) of Decision 1313/2013/EU.

---

ANNEX

Non-exhaustive list of risks relevant under EU legislation and/or policies

Critical infrastructure protection

Council Directive 2008/114/EC on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 75).

Additional link: Critical infrastructure

Drought, water pollution

Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). Consolidated version

Additional Links:

| | Implementation reports and river basin management plans |
| --- | --- |

Implementation reports and river basin management plans

| | Water scarcity and droughts in the EU |
| --- | --- |

Water scarcity and droughts in the EU

Floods

Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27). Consolidated version.

Communication on The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks - COM/2015/120 final

Additional Links: Implementation reports and flood risk management plans

Forest strategy

A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector - COM(2013)659 final

Additional Links: EU forests and forest related policies

Rural development 2014-2020: Country files

Geological risks

Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Consolidated version

Additional links: Eurocodes

Health risks

Decision No 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). Consolidated version.

Additional links:

| | Public health risk assessment ; European Food Safety Authority (1) |
| --- | --- |

Public health risk assessment ; European Food Safety Authority (1)

| | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2) |
| --- | --- |

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2)

Animal and Plant disease

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (Text with EEA relevance). Consolidated version

Directive 2005/65/EC on enhancing port security (Text with EEA relevance). Consolidated version

Measures for the control/combat of:

| — | Classical swine fever Council Directive 2001/89/EC. Consolidated version |
| --- | --- |

—

Classical swine fever Council Directive 2001/89/EC. Consolidated version

| — | African swine fever Council Directive 2002/60/EC. Consolidated version |
| --- | --- |

—

African swine fever Council Directive 2002/60/EC. Consolidated version

| — | African horse sickness Council Directive 92/35/EEC. Consolidated version. |
| --- | --- |

—

African horse sickness Council Directive 92/35/EEC. Consolidated version.

| — | Foot-and-mouth disease Council Directive 2003/85/EC. Consolidated version. |
| --- | --- |

—

Foot-and-mouth disease Council Directive 2003/85/EC. Consolidated version.

Additional links: European Food Safety Authority

Industrial accident risks

Directive 2012/18/EU on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Text with EEA relevance)

Additional links:

| | Industrial accident policy |
| --- | --- |

Industrial accident policy

| | Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 96/82/EC |
| --- | --- |

Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 96/82/EC

Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security risks

Council Decision (87/600/Euratom) on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency

Action plan to enhance preparedness against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security risks - COM/2017/0610 final

Additional link:

| | Securing dangerous material policy |
| --- | --- |

Securing dangerous material policy

| | European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange (ECURIE) |
| --- | --- |

European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange (ECURIE)

Nuclear and radiological risk

Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. Consolidated version

Energy security of supply - Electricity

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2196 establishing a network code on electricity emergency and restoration (Text with EEA relevance)

Regulation (EU) 2019/941 on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector (Text with EEA relevance.)

Review of current national rules and practices relating to risk preparedness in the area of security of electricity supply

Additional links:

| | Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) |
| --- | --- |

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

| | European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) |
| --- | --- |

European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E)

Energy security of supply - Gas

Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply (Text with EEA relevance)

Directive (EU) 2016/1148 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union

Additional links: Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans - 2019

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG)

Offshore oil and gas safety

Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 66)

Additional links: Impact assessment and reviews

Maritime strategy

EU Maritime Security Strategy Action Plan

Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning

Additional links: Overview of maritime spatial planning

Security-related risks

Communication on delivering the European Agenda on Security to fight against terrorism and pave the way towards an effective and genuine Security Union - COM(2016) 230 final

Joint framework on countering hybrid threats: a European Union response - JOIN/2016/018 final

Action plan to support the protection of public spaces - COM/2017/0612 final

Additional links:

| | European agenda on security |
| --- | --- |

European agenda on security

| | EU terrorism situation and trend report (TE-SAT 2018) |
| --- | --- |

EU terrorism situation and trend report (TE-SAT 2018)

Agency: Europol

Cyber-security

Resilience, Deterrence and Defence: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU (JOIN/2017/0450 final)

Two legislative proposals to improve cross-border access to electronic evidence:

| — | Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (COM/2018/225 final) |
| --- | --- |

—

Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (COM/2018/225 final)

| — | Proposal for a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings (COM/2018/226 final) |
| --- | --- |

—

Proposal for a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings (COM/2018/226 final)

Cybersecurity in the energy sector

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/553 on cybersecurity in the energy sector (notified under document

Commission Impact Assessment (SWD/2018/403 final) establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres

Additional links: Report: Recommendations on implementation on sector-specific rules for cybersecurity, 2019

Non-exhaustive list of cross-cutting areas of common interest in EU legislation and/or policies

Cultural heritage

Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe (COM/2014/0477 final)

A New European Agenda for Culture (COM/2018/267 final)

European Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage (SWD(2018) 491 final)

Additional links: Safeguarding cultural heritage from natural and man-made disasters. A comparative analysis of risk management in the EU

Natural areas and habitats

Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment

Report on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment

Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Text with EEA relevance). Consolidated version

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Consolidated version

Additional Links: Ecosystem services accounting

Climate change adaptation

Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action

An EU strategy on adaptation to climate change - COM/2013/0216 final

Report on the implementation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change - COM/2018/738 final

Additional links:

| | National Energy and Climate Plans |
| --- | --- |

National Energy and Climate Plans

| | Country profiles |
| --- | --- |

Country profiles

| | Adaptation preparedness scoreboard |
| --- | --- |

Adaptation preparedness scoreboard

| | Adaptation strategy - Evaluation process |
| --- | --- |

Adaptation strategy - Evaluation process

| | PESETA project |
| --- | --- |

PESETA project

| | Natura 2000 network of protected sites and the strict system of species protection |
| --- | --- |

Natura 2000 network of protected sites and the strict system of species protection

Environmental liability

Directive 2004/35/CE on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 35, 18.7.2013). Consolidated version

Additional link: Environmental liability

Green infrastructure

Green infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s natural capital - COM/2013/0249 final

Additional links:

| | EU strategy on green infrastructure |
| --- | --- |

EU strategy on green infrastructure

| | Ecosystem services and Green Infrastructure |
| --- | --- |

Ecosystem services and Green Infrastructure

| | Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services |
| --- | --- |

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services

Migrations

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/369 on the provision of emergency support within the Union (OJ L 70, 16.3.2016, p. 1)

Additional links: Progress report on the Implementation of the European Agenda on Migration (COM/2019/126 final)

Data management

Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1)

Additional links:

| | Inspire knowledge base |
| --- | --- |

Inspire knowledge base

| | Data specification for natural risk zones |
| --- | --- |

Data specification for natural risk zones

---

(1)  In the event of a serious cross-border threat to health falling under its mandate

(2)  If the threat is of a) biological origin and consists of communicable diseases or antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections; or b) threats of unknown origin.

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/34

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 16 December 2019

on the renewal of the Commission Expert Group ‘Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation’

(2019/C 428/08)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | In its Communication of 6 December 2012 (1), the Commission presented an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. The Communication was accompanied by two Recommendations, one on aggressive tax planning (2) and one regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters (3). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In its Communication of 6 December 2012 (1), the Commission presented an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. The Communication was accompanied by two Recommendations, one on aggressive tax planning (2) and one regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters (3).

| (2) | Commission Decision C(2013)2236 (4) set up the Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation (‘the Platform’), a Commission expert group, to review progress on a range of measures, including the 2012 Action Plan on tax fraud and evasion and the implementation of the two Recommendations. In its Communication on double taxation in the single market (5), the Commission concluded that it would examine the potential benefits of setting up an EU Forum on double taxation. Given that double non-taxation and double taxation are often linked, it was deemed appropriate to also address double taxation in the Platform, and that is still the case today. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision C(2013)2236 (4) set up the Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation (‘the Platform’), a Commission expert group, to review progress on a range of measures, including the 2012 Action Plan on tax fraud and evasion and the implementation of the two Recommendations. In its Communication on double taxation in the single market (5), the Commission concluded that it would examine the potential benefits of setting up an EU Forum on double taxation. Given that double non-taxation and double taxation are often linked, it was deemed appropriate to also address double taxation in the Platform, and that is still the case today.

| (3) | By Commission Decision C(2015)4095 (6), the Platform was established anew and Decision C(2013)2236 was repealed. Decision C(2015)4095 ceased to apply on 17 June 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By Commission Decision C(2015)4095 (6), the Platform was established anew and Decision C(2013)2236 was repealed. Decision C(2015)4095 ceased to apply on 17 June 2019.

| (4) | The European Parliament (7) and the Council of the European Union (8) have called for continuous efforts in the fight against tax fraud and tax avoidance. The work of the European Parliament’s TAXE committee established in the early 2015 and immediately followed by TAX2 special committee, the ‘Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion’, and finally the TAX3 committee called for further work to fight against unfair, inefficient taxation and further initiatives in tax good governance and tax transparency. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The European Parliament (7) and the Council of the European Union (8) have called for continuous efforts in the fight against tax fraud and tax avoidance. The work of the European Parliament’s TAXE committee established in the early 2015 and immediately followed by TAX2 special committee, the ‘Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion’, and finally the TAX3 committee called for further work to fight against unfair, inefficient taxation and further initiatives in tax good governance and tax transparency.

| (5) | The Platform has been an efficient tool in increasing such transparency in tax policy-making while encouraging and enabling constructive dialogue between the Commission and the different tax stakeholders, as well as among the different tax stakeholders themselves. The Commission needs to rely on the expertise of specialists and stakeholders. The Platform has been a valuable source of such expertise in the field of tax. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Platform has been an efficient tool in increasing such transparency in tax policy-making while encouraging and enabling constructive dialogue between the Commission and the different tax stakeholders, as well as among the different tax stakeholders themselves. The Commission needs to rely on the expertise of specialists and stakeholders. The Platform has been a valuable source of such expertise in the field of tax.

| (6) | The Commission is a partner in the Addis Tax Initiative, a multi-stakeholder partnership initiated in 2015, aiming at enhancing domestic revenue mobilisation in developing countries to fund their development agenda and meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The Platform should continue to advise and assist the Commission in its ongoing work based on the Addis Tax Initiative. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Commission is a partner in the Addis Tax Initiative, a multi-stakeholder partnership initiated in 2015, aiming at enhancing domestic revenue mobilisation in developing countries to fund their development agenda and meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The Platform should continue to advise and assist the Commission in its ongoing work based on the Addis Tax Initiative.

| (7) | Fair and efficient taxation as a political priority of the Commission led to numerous legal initiatives, as well as State aid cases and soft law. On 18 March 2015, the Commission adopted a package on tax transparency (9). On 17 June 2015 (10), it adopted a Communication on a fair and efficient corporate tax system in the Union (the 2015 Action Plan) where it reported on the application of the 2012 Recommendations with input from the Platform. In that Communication, the Commission announced that the mandate of the Platform would be prolonged, its scope expanded and its working methods enhanced. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Fair and efficient taxation as a political priority of the Commission led to numerous legal initiatives, as well as State aid cases and soft law. On 18 March 2015, the Commission adopted a package on tax transparency (9). On 17 June 2015 (10), it adopted a Communication on a fair and efficient corporate tax system in the Union (the 2015 Action Plan) where it reported on the application of the 2012 Recommendations with input from the Platform. In that Communication, the Commission announced that the mandate of the Platform would be prolonged, its scope expanded and its working methods enhanced.

| (8) | On 28 January 2016, the Commission adopted a Communication on an External Strategy for Effective Taxation (11), to promote tax good governance globally. The Communication identified new areas of work for the Platform, notably in relation to the Union’s tax and development agenda and the coordination of national lists of non-cooperative jurisdictions. In this regard, the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (12) still remains a fundamental tool to enforce tax good governance globally. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 28 January 2016, the Commission adopted a Communication on an External Strategy for Effective Taxation (11), to promote tax good governance globally. The Communication identified new areas of work for the Platform, notably in relation to the Union’s tax and development agenda and the coordination of national lists of non-cooperative jurisdictions. In this regard, the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (12) still remains a fundamental tool to enforce tax good governance globally.

| (9) | As indicated in the political guidelines 2019-2024 presented in July 2019 (13), fair and efficient taxation will remain a high priority for the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

As indicated in the political guidelines 2019-2024 presented in July 2019 (13), fair and efficient taxation will remain a high priority for the Commission.

| (10) | Given the proven usefulness of the Platform as a forum that has had and continues to have a significant impact by contributing to the development of the tax transparency and fair taxation agenda, it is appropriate to renew its mandate. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Given the proven usefulness of the Platform as a forum that has had and continues to have a significant impact by contributing to the development of the tax transparency and fair taxation agenda, it is appropriate to renew its mandate.

| (11) | The Platform should provide advice and assistance to the Commission. The Platform would also allow for dialogue, sharing of experience and expertise, and exchange of views among all stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Platform should provide advice and assistance to the Commission. The Platform would also allow for dialogue, sharing of experience and expertise, and exchange of views among all stakeholders.

| (12) | The Platform should be chaired by a representative of the Commission and consist of representatives from the Member States’ tax authorities, and organisations representing business or civil society and tax practitioners. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The Platform should be chaired by a representative of the Commission and consist of representatives from the Member States’ tax authorities, and organisations representing business or civil society and tax practitioners.

| (13) | Rules on disclosure of information by members of the Platform should be laid down. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Rules on disclosure of information by members of the Platform should be laid down.

| (14) | Personal data should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Personal data should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14).

| (15) | To ensure the continuity of the activity of the Platform, this Decision should apply retroactively. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

To ensure the continuity of the activity of the Platform, this Decision should apply retroactively.

| (16) | It is appropriate to fix a period for the application of this Decision. The Commission will in due time consider the advisability of an extension, |
| --- | --- |

(16)

It is appropriate to fix a period for the application of this Decision. The Commission will in due time consider the advisability of an extension,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Subject matter

The mandate of the group of experts ‘Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation’ (‘the Platform’) is hereby renewed.

Article 2

Tasks

The Platform’s tasks shall be to provide advice and assistance to the Commission in the field of tax good governance, aggressive tax planning and double taxation, while allowing for a dialogue in which experience and expertise are exchanged and the views of all stakeholders are heard. In particular, the Platform shall:

| (a) | provide the Commission with information relevant to the identification of priorities in areas such as good governance in tax matters, aggressive tax planning and double taxation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

provide the Commission with information relevant to the identification of priorities in areas such as good governance in tax matters, aggressive tax planning and double taxation;

| (b) | advise the Commission on the appropriate means and instruments to achieve progress in those areas; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

advise the Commission on the appropriate means and instruments to achieve progress in those areas;

| (c) | encourage discussion between business, civil society and national tax authorities’ experts on issues in the field of good governance in tax matters, aggressive tax planning and double taxation; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

encourage discussion between business, civil society and national tax authorities’ experts on issues in the field of good governance in tax matters, aggressive tax planning and double taxation;

| (d) | discuss practical insights provided by tax authorities, as well as business, civil society and tax practitioners, and elaborate on possible ways to address more efficiently the current double taxation problems affecting the smooth functioning of the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

discuss practical insights provided by tax authorities, as well as business, civil society and tax practitioners, and elaborate on possible ways to address more efficiently the current double taxation problems affecting the smooth functioning of the internal market;

| (e) | advise and assist the Commission in its ongoing work based on the Addis Tax Initiative. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

advise and assist the Commission in its ongoing work based on the Addis Tax Initiative.

For the purposes of this Decision, ‘good governance in tax matters’ means transparency, exchange of information and fair tax competition.

Article 3

Consultation

The Commission may consult the Platform on any matter relating to good governance in tax matters, aggressive tax planning and double taxation and the follow-up to the 2015 Action Plan.

Article 4

Membership

1.   The Platform shall be composed of a maximum of 43 members.

2.   Members of the Platform shall be:

| (a) | Member States’ tax authorities (‘Type D members’ as referred to in Article 7(2)(d) of Commission Decision C(2016) 3301 final) (15); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Member States’ tax authorities (‘Type D members’ as referred to in Article 7(2)(d) of Commission Decision C(2016) 3301 final) (15);

| (b) | up to fifteen business, civil society and tax practitioner organisations with competence in the matters referred to in Article 2 (‘Type C members’ as referred to in Article 7(2)(c) of the horizontal rules). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

up to fifteen business, civil society and tax practitioner organisations with competence in the matters referred to in Article 2 (‘Type C members’ as referred to in Article 7(2)(c) of the horizontal rules).

3.   Type D members shall only be represented by civil servants or public employees. The tax authorities of each Member State shall nominate one representative from among the officials dealing with cross-border taxation with a focus on fighting aggressive tax planning.

4.   Type C members shall only be appointed and shall only take part in the workings of the Platform or its sub-groups if they are registered in the Transparency Register that has been set up jointly by the European Parliament and the Commission.

5.   Where a Type C member is suspended or removed from the Transparency Register, the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) shall suspend it from the Platform as long as its registration in the Transparency Register is not re-established. During suspension or removal, that member shall not be invited to participate in any meeting of the group and shall not receive any document. If after six months from suspension or removal from the Transparency Register registration on the Transparency Register is not re-established, DG TAXUD shall exclude the member from the Platform. Any such change in membership shall be recorded in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (‘Register of expert groups’) (16).

6.   Type C members shall nominate permanent representatives and alternates in the Platform or its sub-groups and shall be responsible for ensuring that their representatives provide a high level of expertise.

Article 5

Selection process

1.   The selection of the Platform’s Type C members shall be carried out via public calls for applications. For that purpose, DG TAXUD shall make use of the standard call for applications for the selection of the Platform’s members as set out in Annex 2 to the horizontal rules. DG TAXUD may depart from it or supplement it, where this is justified by specific requirements, in compliance with the horizontal rules.

2.   A call for applications shall be published on the Register of expert groups. In addition, the call for applications may be published through other means, including on a dedicated website (17). The call shall clearly outline the selection criteria, including the required expertise and the interests to be represented (18) in relation to the work to be performed. The minimum deadline for applications shall be four weeks.

3.   When responding to the call for applications, organisations shall nominate one representative and one alternate member, in accordance with the same conditions as the representative. The alternate member shall automatically replace a representative who is absent or indisposed. DG TAXUD may refuse the nomination of a representative or alternate by an organisation if they consider it inappropriate, which should be justified in the light of the requirements specified in the decision setting up the Platform and/or in the call for applications. In such cases, the organisation concerned shall be asked to nominate another representative or another alternate.

4.   The members of the group shall be appointed by the Director-General of DG TAXUD from specialists with competence in the areas referred to in Article 2 and who have responded to the call for applications. When selecting the members of the Platform from specialist organisations, DG TAXUD shall aim at ensuring, as far as possible, a high level of expertise, a geographical balance, as well as a balanced representation of relevant know how and competence in the areas of interest referred to in Articles 2 and 3, taking into account the specific tasks of the expert group, the type of expertise required and the response received to the call for applications.

5.   Members shall be appointed for 2,5 years. They shall remain in office until replaced, or until the end of their term of office. Their term of office may be renewed.

6.   In order to ensure continuity and the smooth functioning of the group, DG TAXUD shall establish a reserve list of suitable candidates that may be used to appoint members’ replacements. DG TAXUD shall ask applicants for their consent before including their names on the reserve list.

7.   Type C members or their representatives shall no longer be invited to participate in any meetings of the Platform and may be replaced or excluded for the remainder of their term of office in any of the following cases:

| (a) | where a Type C member or its representative is no longer capable of contributing effectively to the Platform’s deliberations; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

where a Type C member or its representative is no longer capable of contributing effectively to the Platform’s deliberations;

| (b) | where a Type C member or its representative, in the opinion of DG TAXUD, does not comply with the conditions set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

where a Type C member or its representative, in the opinion of DG TAXUD, does not comply with the conditions set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| (c) | where a Type C member or its representative resigns. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

where a Type C member or its representative resigns.

Where a Type C member or its representative is to be replaced or excluded, the Director-General for Taxation and Customs Union may, as appropriate, appoint a replacement organisation from the reserve list referred to in paragraph 6 or ask an organisation to nominate another representative or another alternate.

Article 6

Chair

The Platform shall be chaired by the Director-General for Taxation and Customs Union or a representative.

Article 7

Operation

1.   The Platform shall act at the request of DG TAXUD, in compliance with the horizontal rules.

2.   Meetings of the Platform and its sub-groups shall, in principle, be held on Commission premises.

3.   The Platform and its sub-groups may hold joint meetings with other expert groups on issues of common interest.

4.   DG TAXUD shall provide secretarial services. Commission officials from other departments with an interest in the proceedings may attend meetings of the Platform and its sub-groups.

5.   In agreement with DG TAXUD, the Platform may, by simple majority of its members, decide that deliberations shall be public.

6.   Minutes on the discussion on each point on the agenda and on the opinions delivered by the Platform shall be meaningful and complete. Minutes shall be drafted by the secretariat under the responsibility of the Chair.

7.   The Platform shall adopt its opinions, recommendations or reports by consensus.

Article 8

Sub-groups

1.   To facilitate the efficient functioning of the Platform, DG TAXUD may establish a sub-group composed exclusively of government (Member States’ tax authorities) representatives and another sub-group composed exclusively of non-government (business, civil society and tax practitioner organisations) representatives.

2.   DG TAXUD may set up other sub-groups to examine specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by it. Such sub-groups shall be dissolved as soon as their mandate is fulfilled. The members of sub-groups that are not members of the Platform shall be selected via a public call for applications, in compliance with Article 5 and the horizontal rules (19).

3.   Each sub-group shall operate in compliance with the horizontal rules and shall report to the Platform.

Article 9

Invited experts

DG TAXUD may invite experts with specific expertise with respect to a subject matter on the agenda to take part in the work of the Platform or its sub-groups on an ad hoc basis.

Article 10

Relationship with the European Parliament

As regards information to be transmitted to the European Parliament and participation of European Parliament experts in meetings of the Platform, point 15 and Annexes I and II of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission shall apply (20).

Article 11

Observers

1.   Individuals, organisations and public entities other than Member States’ authorities may be granted an observer status, in compliance with the horizontal rules, by direct invitation.

2.   Organisations and public entities appointed as observers shall nominate their representatives.

3.   Observers and their representatives may be permitted by the Chair to take part in the discussions of the group and provide expertise. However, they shall not participate in the formulation of recommendations or advice of the Platform.

Article 12

Rules of procedure

On a proposal by and in agreement with DG TAXUD, the Platform shall adopt its rules of procedure by simple majority of its members, on the basis of the standard rules of procedure for expert groups, in compliance with the horizontal rules.

Article 13

Professional secrecy and handling of classified information

The members of the Platform and its sub-groups and their representatives, as well as invited experts and observers, are subject to the obligation of professional secrecy which, by virtue of the Treaties and the rules implementing them, applies to all members of the institutions and their staff, as well as to the Commission’s rules on security regarding the protection of Union classified information, laid down in Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 (21) and 2015/444 (22). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Commission may take all appropriate measures.

Article 14

Transparency

1.   The Platform and its sub-groups shall be registered in the Register of expert groups.

2.   As concerns the Platform’s composition, the following data shall be published on the Register of expert groups:

| (a) | the name of member organisations; the interest represented shall be disclosed; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the name of member organisations; the interest represented shall be disclosed;

| (b) | the name of observers; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the name of observers;

| (c) | the name of Member States’ authorities (23). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the name of Member States’ authorities (23).

3.   DG TAXUD shall publish all relevant documents of the Platform and its sub-groups, including the agendas, the minutes and the participants’ submissions, either on the Register of expert groups or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website where this information can be found. Access to such a website shall not be submitted to user registration or any other restriction. In particular, the agenda and other relevant background documents shall be published in due time ahead of the meeting, followed by timely publication of minutes.

4.   Exceptions to publication shall only be allowed where it is deemed that disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of any public or private interest as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (24).

Article 15

Protection of personal data

Personal data shall be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Article 16

Meeting expenses

1.   Participants in the activities of the Platform and its sub-groups shall not be remunerated for the services they offer.

2.   Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the Platform and its sub-groups shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission. For Type C and Type D members, the Commission shall reimburse travel and subsistence expenses, in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission. For organisations appointed as observers, reimbursements shall not be granted under any circumstance. Invited experts shall be granted reimbursement for their travel and subsistence expenses.

3.   Any reimbursement of expenses in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be within the limits of the available appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.

Article 17

Applicability

This Decision shall apply from 17 June 2019 until 16 June 2024.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 2019.

For the Commission

Paolo GENTILONI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  COM(2012) 722 final.

1

(2)  C(2012) 8806 final.

2

(3)  C(2012) 8805 final.

3

(4)  Commission Decision C(2013) 2236 of 23 April 2013 on setting up a Commission Expert Group to be known as the Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation.

4

(5)  COM(2011) 712 final.

5

(6)  Commission Decision C(2015)4095 of 17 June 2015 establishing the Commission Expert Group ‘Platform for Tax Good Governance, Aggressive Tax Planning and Double Taxation’ and replacing Decision C(2013)2236.

6

(7)  European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2015 on the Annual Tax Report.

7

(8)  ECOFIN Council meeting of 9.12.2014, European Council meeting of 18.12.2014.

8

(9)  Communication on tax transparency to fight tax evasion and avoidance (COM(2015)136 final), which led to amendments of Directive 2011/16/EU by Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (OJ L 332, 18.12.2015, p. 1) referring to cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements, Council Directive (EU) 2016/881 as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (OJ L 146, 3.6.2016, p. 8) referring to country-by-country reports and Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements (OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1).

9

(10)  COM(2015)302 final.

10

(11)  COM(2016) 24 final.

11

(12)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-list-of-non-cooperative-jurisdictions/

12

(13)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/interim_en#political-guidelines

13

(14)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

14

(15)  Commission Decision C(2016) 3301 final of 30.5.2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups (‘the horizontal rules’).

15

(16)  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/

16

(17)  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/tax-good-governance/platform-tax-good-governance_en

17

(18)  This is only relevant for member organisations.

18

(19)  See Articles 10 and 14(2) of the horizontal rules.

19

(20)  OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.

20

(21)  Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 of 13 March 2015 on Security in the Commission (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 41).

21

(22)  Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).

22

(23)  According to the horizontal rules, it is not mandatory to publish the name of the Member States’ authorities. The specific administrations of these countries to which experts usually participating in the meetings belong may be published in the Register of the expert groups. See Article 23(1)(b) of the horizontal rules.

23

(24)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). These exceptions are intended to protect public security, military affairs, international relations, financial, monetary or economic policy, privacy and integrity of the individual, commercial interests, court proceedings and legal advice, inspections/investigations/audits and the institution’s decision-making process.

24

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/41

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Ingersoll-Rand U.S. HoldCo, Inc. (‘IR Industrials’, United States), belonging to the group Ingersoll-Rand plc (Ireland), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ingersoll-Rand U.S. HoldCo, Inc. (‘IR Industrials’, United States), belonging to the group Ingersoll-Rand plc (Ireland),

| — | Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. (‘GDI’, United States). |
| --- | --- |

—

Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. (‘GDI’, United States).

GDI acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of IR Industrials.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | IR Industrials is the industrial business of Ingersoll-Rand, active in air and gas compressors, blowers, gas systems and services, power tools and material handling systems, as well as utility and consumer low-speed vehicles, |
| --- | --- |

—

IR Industrials is the industrial business of Ingersoll-Rand, active in air and gas compressors, blowers, gas systems and services, power tools and material handling systems, as well as utility and consumer low-speed vehicles,

| — | GDI is a provider of air and gas compression equipment and aftermarket parts and services sold for industrial, energy and medical industries. GDI designs, manufactures and markets compressors, pumps and blowers, and vacuums for a range of industrial applications. |
| --- | --- |

—

GDI is a provider of air and gas compression equipment and aftermarket parts and services sold for industrial, energy and medical industries. GDI designs, manufactures and markets compressors, pumps and blowers, and vacuums for a range of industrial applications.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax: +32 22964301

| Postal address: |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/43

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9701 — InfraVia/Iliad/Iliad 73)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 428/10)

1.

On 13 December 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Iliad S.A. (‘Iliad’, France), |
| --- | --- |

—

Iliad S.A. (‘Iliad’, France),

| — | InfraVia Capital Partners (‘InfraVia’, France). |
| --- | --- |

—

InfraVia Capital Partners (‘InfraVia’, France).

Iliad and InfraVia acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of newly created joint venture.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for Iliad: provision of fixed and mobile telephony services, internet access and hosting services, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Iliad: provision of fixed and mobile telephony services, internet access and hosting services,

| — | for InfraVia: management of investment funds specialised in the infrastructure sector, |
| --- | --- |

—

for InfraVia: management of investment funds specialised in the infrastructure sector,

| — | for the joint venture: provision of wholesale local access at a fixed location in France. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the joint venture: provision of wholesale local access at a fixed location in France.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

2

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9701 — InfraVia/Iliad/Iliad 73

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/44

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2019/C 428/11)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1).

COMMUNICATING THE APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT

‘Barbanza e Iria’

PGI-ES-A1255-AM02

Date of communication: 11.10.2019

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   New limits for analytical characteristics

Description and reasons

The volatile acidity and sulphur dioxide limits currently laid down in the product specification are too restrictive, meaning that wines that have the typical features of ‘Barbanza e Iria’ wines and the required sensory characteristics do not qualify.

The current product specification limits volatile acidity to 0,80 grams per litre of acetic acid for all wine types. However, as the threshold above which the human sense of smell can detect this acidity is somewhat higher, this limit is to be increased slightly to 0,9 grams per litre for wines marketed in the same year they are made, and to 1,0 gram of acetic acid per litre for wines aged at least a year before being placed on the market.

The product specification currently limits the sulphur dioxide content to 125 milligrams per litre for monovarietal wines and 150 milligrams per litre for other wine types. The wines from this PGI placed on the market have been getting increasingly older in recent years. As wines that have been aged for longer are also exposed to the risk of oxidation for longer, they sometimes surpass the existing limit, meaning that wines with very good sensory qualities whose sulphur dioxide content is within the legal limit are unable to use the geographical indication. We therefore propose that the sulphur dioxide limit be raised to 175 milligrams per litre for white wines and 150 milligrams per litre for red wines.

These changes to the product specification should be classed as a standard amendment under Article 14 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

This amendment affects point 2.a of the product specification and point 1.4 of the single document.

2.   Higher yield per hectare for white grapes

Description and reasons

As recent years’ experience shows that a large number of vineyard parcels are capable of yielding greater volumes than currently permitted without this diminishing the quality of the resulting wines, the white grape yield is to be increased from 10 000 to 12 000 kilograms per hectare.

This change to the product specification should be classed as a standard amendment under Article 14 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

This amendment affects point 5 of the product specification and point 1.5.2 of the single document.

3.   New variety

Description and reasons

Merenzao is to be added to the list of grape varieties. It is already present in the area, albeit in small quantities, and although it is not a very common crop due to its low yields and susceptibility to rot, it is a variety traditionally grown in Galicia. Its short growth cycle is well suited to the natural environment of this geographical indication: it ripens well in the local conditions, producing good-quality musts.

This change to the product specification should be classed as a standard amendment under Article 14 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

This amendment affects point 6 of the product specification but does not concern the single document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Barbanza e Iria

2.   Geographical indication type

PGI — Protected Geographical Indication

3.   Categories of grapevine product

1. Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

WINE — Whites, reds and monovarietals

These wines are light, clear and bright in appearance, with a good depth of colour. Their aroma is straightforward and defect-free and reflects the characteristics of the raw material used to make the wines, with a moderate alcoholic strength and floral and fruity notes. On the palate the wines are soft, fresh, rich and balanced, with a slight hint of acidity.

Minimum actual alcoholic strength of monovarietals: 11 %

Maximum volatile acidity of wines marketed after at least one year of ageing: 16,66 mEq/L

Maximum sulphur dioxide content in white wines: 175 mg/L

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 10 |
| Minimum total acidity | 5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | 15 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 150 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

10

Minimum total acidity

5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

15

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

150

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Essential oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

Once extracted from the grapes and separated from the marc, the must yield should not exceed 67 litres per 100 kilograms of grapes.

b.   Maximum yields

White grape varieties

12 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

White grape varieties

80,4 hectolitres per hectare

Red grape varieties

8 000kilograms of grapes per hectare

Red grape varieties

53,6 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The area comprises: the municipalities of Boiro, Catoira, Dodro, A Pobra do Caramiñal, Pontecesures, Rianxo, Ribeira and Valga; the administrative parishes of Camboño, Fruíme and Tállara in the municipality of Lousame; the administrative parishes of Iria Flavia and Padrón in the municipality of Padrón; and the administrative parishes of Baroña, Caamaño, Queiruga, Ribasieira, San Pedro de Muro and Xuño in the municipality of Porto do Son.

Most of this geographical area is located in the province of A Coruña, with the exception of the municipalities of Catoira, Valga and Pontecesures, which belong to the province of Pontevedra.

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

ALBARIÑO

8.   Description of the link(s)

The wines reflect the local temperature, rainfall and growing conditions, as well as the human factor, which materialises in the choice of varieties (using mostly native varieties), the selection of the best soils (loamy, deep, permeable soils that are characteristic of this geographical area) and the use of good growing practices, including pruning and training vines manually with a great deal of skill, allowing the area’s wine-growing potential to be harnessed. All of these conditions result in balanced, harmonious wines that keep well and have an excellent aromatic profile.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Packaging within the demarcated area

Description of the condition:

The wines must be bottled in the demarcated geographical area in which they are made. Transporting and bottling the wine outside the winemaking area can jeopardise quality, as the wine can be exposed to oxidation-reduction, variations in temperature and other influences. The further the wine travels, the greater the risk. Bottling in the area of origin allows the product’s characteristics and quality to be preserved. This, combined with the experience and in-depth knowledge of the wines’ particular qualities that the wineries of the Protected Geographical Indication ‘Barbanza e Iria’ have accumulated over the years, makes it necessary to bottle the wines in the area of origin, thus preserving all their physical, chemical and sensory characteristics.

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

A numbered secondary label with the PGI logo must be affixed to all bottles.

Link to the product specification

https://mediorural.xunta.gal/fileadmin/arquivos/alimentacion/produtos_calidade/tramitacion/IGP_BARBANZA_e_IRIA_Pliego_de_condiciones_final_julio_2019.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2

---

| 20.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/48

---

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2019/C 428/12)

This publication confers the right to oppose the amendment application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) within three months of the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘ΦΑΣΌΛΙΑ ΚΑΤΤΑΒΙΆΣ ΡΌΔΟΥ’ (FASOLIA KATTAVIAS RODOU) /

‘ΛΌΠΙΑ ΚΑΤΤΑΒΙΆΣ ΡΌΔΟΥ’ (LOPIA KATTAVIAS RODOU)

EU No: PGI-GR-02422 — 12.6.2018

PDO ( ) PGI (X)

1.   Name(s)

‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou)

2.   Member State or Third Country

Greece

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

3.2.   Description of product to which the name in (1) applies

The protected geographical indication ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ denotes the seeds of a dwarf variety of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), which has adapted perfectly to the soil and climatic conditions of Kattavia.

‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ have the following characteristics:

3.2.1.   Morphological characteristics:

The seeds are white and slightly kidney-shaped, with a weight of 200 to 240 grams per 1 000 seeds (small size).

3.2.2.   Chemical characteristics:

| — | Total carbohydrates: high content, at least 60 % of dry matter |
| --- | --- |

—

Total carbohydrates: high content, at least 60 % of dry matter

| — | Maximum water content: 15 % |
| --- | --- |

—

Maximum water content: 15 %

3.2.3.   Organoleptic characteristics:

| — | Tasty bean flavour (mild, sweet taste) |
| --- | --- |

—

Tasty bean flavour (mild, sweet taste)

The beans cook easily (short cooking time), when the beans are cooked the skin is barely perceptible

3.3.   Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

—

3.4.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the defined geographical area

‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ must be produced within the geographical area defined in point 4.

Specifically, soil preparation, sowing, harvesting and the drying and cleaning of the seeds must take place within the defined geographical area. During sowing, only seeds from the dwarf variety of dry bean produced on the holding that have the morphological characteristics given in point 3.2.1 may be used. These seeds are collected when the previous crop is harvested, after threshing, and stored in sacks away from the light.

3.5.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

—

3.6.   Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

—

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ PGI beans are produced in the Kattavia Municipal District in the Municipal Unit of Southern Rhodes, which is part of the Municipality of Rhodes in the Regional Unit of Rhodes in the South Aegean Region.

5.   Link with the geographical area

The link between Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou with the defined geographical area derives from its specific characteristics and its reputation.

The land on which the dwarf variety of dry bean ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ are grown is located a maximum of one kilometre from the sea and the soil is clay-limestone. Before sowing, the land is ploughed twice in order to improve the moisture and nutrient retention capacity of the soil, so that the crop can withstand water stress (dry farming).

The defined geographical area has a temperate climate, typical of a Mediterranean island, with mild, relatively wet winters and dry summers. Average annual rainfall fluctuates from year to year with irregular distribution and is concentrated in autumn and (primarily) winter. Traditionally, the beans are dry farmed. Rainfall prior to sowing in January and February and after sowing (March and April), helps the soil to maintain the level of moisture needed to produce sufficient yields of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ under conditions of water stress/dry farming.

Temperatures during the ripening and harvesting of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ are mild because this particular dwarf variety of dry bean ripens earlier than other varieties (the ripening period is normally around the middle to the end of June). The early cropping of this particular dwarf variety also means that it can be dry farmed, as the high temperatures in July and August are avoided.

Harvesting is carried out in the early hours with the Ponente (wet, westerly wind) and morning moisture, since moisture is very important during the harvesting process, as it stops the pods opening and the seeds spilling out.

The defined geographical area has at least 300 days of sunshine a year, May and September being the sunniest months. Kattavia’s specific microclimate is ideal for growing this dwarf variety of dry bean since beans are thermophilic, sun-loving plants and struggle in wet soil.

The product’s historical link with the defined geographical area is clear from the crucial role that the beans have played in the economic and social life of residents of Kattavia for many years. The beans were, and still are, an essential part of their diet. A resident of the area who is still alive has attested to the fact that the beans have been grown in Kattavia since 1935 using dry farming techniques. Records saved in the Rhodes public library from the time of the Italian occupation show that pulses were the crop grown by the residents of Kattavia that covered the largest area of land and, because they ripened early, provided an opportunity for successful trading activity. Today, the local producers still grow ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ using traditional methods that have been handed down from generation to generation. Owing to the region’s unstable climatic conditions, particularly rainfall and temperatures, only those farmers with local experience are able to judge when the time is right for sowing, harvesting and drying.

The long-standing experience the producers have acquired with respect to traditional cultivation techniques, specifically:

| — | in selecting the seed (produced on the holding) to be used for the next crop to ensure that the product is pure and can be dry farmed, since this seed is excellently adapted to the area’s soil and climatic conditions, |
| --- | --- |

—

in selecting the seed (produced on the holding) to be used for the next crop to ensure that the product is pure and can be dry farmed, since this seed is excellently adapted to the area’s soil and climatic conditions,

| — | in preparing the soil (two ploughings) before sowing, to improve its moisture and nutrient retention capacity, in order to take better advantage of the rains to come, |
| --- | --- |

—

in preparing the soil (two ploughings) before sowing, to improve its moisture and nutrient retention capacity, in order to take better advantage of the rains to come,

| — | in harvesting at the right time, when the pods turn a yellow-brown colour, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in harvesting at the right time, when the pods turn a yellow-brown colour, and

| — | in ensuring that the seeds are properly dried, so that the pods can be detached easily from the seeds, |
| --- | --- |

—

in ensuring that the seeds are properly dried, so that the pods can be detached easily from the seeds,

directly affects the quality and characteristics of the product. It is precisely this experience the local producers have, together with the defined geographical area’s specific soil and climatic conditions, and the use of the dwarf variety of dry bean grown for over a century in this particular area of Kattavia, which enables ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ to be dry farmed and gives the final product its specific quality characteristics.

The specificity of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ lies in their flavoursome taste (mild sweet taste) and the fact that they cook easily (short cooking time) as well as their reputation. These quality characteristics make the product particularly attractive to consumers and have given the product its reputation, as evidenced by numerous references on websites featuring traditional recipes and in local newspaper articles.

The final product derives its particular qualities from the combination of clay-limestone soils, dry farming, climatic conditions during the ripening period and the production techniques passed down from father to son for a century among local producers.

The product’s flavoursome taste (mild, sweet taste) is due to the high carbohydrate content of the dwarf variety of dry bean selected by local producers, which has adapted to the region and to dry farming. A high carbohydrate content gives the beans their mild, sweet taste. In addition, the variety’s genotype and environmental factors during plant growth and the ripening of the seed affect the seed’s quality characteristics.

Consumers say that ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ are easy to cook, due to their short cooking time. This quality characteristic is very important for consumers and is due to the beans’ high carbohydrate content. Scientific studies have shown that the high carbohydrate content reduces cooking time, since it helps the beans to absorb water during cooking, prevents them from sticking together and reduces the hardness of the seed. According to scientific publications, the high carbohydrate content of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ can be attributed to the dry farming technique used in the defined geographical area and the specific genotype used for sowing. For this particular variety of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’, which can withstand water stress, the dry farming technique essentially activates a mechanism that effectively transfers sucrose from the leaves of the bean plant to the pods, which boosts the high composition and concentration of carbohydrates in the beans. The ripening of the bean seed is affected by the soil conditions of the defined geographical area and the traditional growing techniques. Rainfall prior to sowing helps the clay-limestone soils in the area to maintain the required level of moisture. Temperatures during the ripening and harvesting of ‘Fasolia Kattavias Rodou/Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ are mild because this particular dwarf variety of dry bean ripens earlier than other varieties (the ripening period is normally around the middle to the end of June) therefore making dry farming possible since the high temperatures of July and August are avoided. In addition, the preparation of the soil (two ploughings) before sowing improves its moisture and nutrient retention capacity, in order to take better advantage of the rains to come. The selection of the seed (produced on the holding) by producers to be used for the next crop helps with the ripening of the seed since this dwarf variety is excellently adapted to the area’s soil and climatic conditions and to dry farming.

The product’s reputation is due to its specific organoleptic characteristics, namely the beans’ flavoursome taste (mild, sweet taste) and the fact that they cook easily (short cooking time), which can be attributed to the specific features of the geographical area in question. The reputation the beans have achieved is evidenced by numerous articles and feature pieces in local newspapers in Rhodes which mention their flavoursome taste, and by Kattavia’s‘Fasolada Festival’, attended by large numbers of visitors and local bodies, which has been held for some years as a result of the product’s reputation in the local community. Moreover, their reputation is evidenced by references in specialised press and cookery books. The local newspaper ‘H Rodiaki’ mentions the product’s reputation in an article entitled ‘And the winner is ... Lopia Kattavias’ (‘Σαρώνει το... λόπι Κατταβιάς’) of 12 March 2016 regarding a tourism fair organised by the South Aegean Region in Berlin and the success of ‘Lopia Kattavias Rodou’ beans at a meal following the event for members of the press. Another article entitled ‘Rhodes’ Lopi beans “conquer” supermarket shelves’ (‘Το λόπι της Ρόδου «κατακτά» τα ράφια των καταστημάτων’) published in the same local newspaper on 17 October 2017 also mentions the product’s reputation, stating: ‘The tasty Lopi beans from Kattavia, which have a high nutritional value, have won over consumers and made a strong entry on the pulse market’.

Reference to publication of the specification

(the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of this Regulation)

http://www.minagric.gr/images/stories/docs/agrotis/POP-PGE/prodiagrafes_fasolia_katavias_rodou.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

---