EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 202 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
A Community approach for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters  
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2009) 82} 
{SEC(2009) 203}
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 5 
2. procedural issues and External consultati on with Member States and stakeholders ... 6 
2.1. Internal preparation ...................................................................................................... 6 
2.2. External consultation with Member States and stakeholders....................................... 6 2.3. Key points emerging from the Comm unication with Member States.......................... 6 
2.4. Key points emerging from the cons ultations with stakeholders .................................. 7 
2.5. External expertise........................................................................................................ .8  
2.6. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 8 3. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9 3.1. General background: disasters, their impact s and benefits of disaster prevention ...... 9 
3.1.1. Growing number and severity of disasters................................................................... 9 3.1.2. A wide range of affected actors ................................................................................. 12 3.2. A fragmented approach to  disaster mitigation ........................................................... 12 
3.2.1. Current situation at EU level...................................................................................... 13 3.2.2. Current situation in Member States ........................................................................... 13 3.3. Specific problems....................................................................................................... 14  
3.3.1. The lack of a consistent knowledge base ................................................................... 15 
3.3.2. Limited or non-existent links amongst the various actors and policy areas .............. 15 
3.3.3. EU funds could better contribu te to disaster prevention............................................ 16 
3.3.4. The lack of prevention measur es for specific disasters.............................................. 17 
3.4. Expected evolution of these problems ....................................................................... 17 3.5. The grounds for EU action......................................................................................... 17 4. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 20 
4.1. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 20 4.2. Link the various actors and sectoral po licies throughout the disaster management 
cycle .......................................................................................................................... . 21 
4.3. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 21 4.4. Better target specific risks, bu ilding on existing initiatives ....................................... 21 
5. Options ..................................................................................................................... .. 21 
EN 3   EN 5.1. Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters................................... 21 
5.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 22 5.3. Improved linking between actors and sect oral policies throug hout the disaster 
management cycle...................................................................................................... 23 
5.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 23 5.5. Better target specific risks bu ilding on existing initiatives ........................................ 24 
6. Impact assessment of the options............................................................................... 25 6.1. Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters................................... 25 
6.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 26 6.2.1. Initiative on risk mapping .......................................................................................... 26 6.2.2. Disaster observatory................................................................................................... 2 8 
6.2.3. Launch projects under the Civil Protecti on Financial Instrument (CPFI) for the 
development of common methodologies fo r data acquisition and information 
generation on disasters in the EU............................................................................... 30 
6.3. Improved linking of actors and sectoral po licies throughout the di saster management 
cycle .......................................................................................................................... . 30 
6.3.1. Development of best practices and gu idelines involving prevention aspects............ 30 
6.3.2. Multisectoral steering group ...................................................................................... 30 
6.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 31 
6.4.1. Specific funding ........................................................................................................ . 32 
6.4.2. Guidance on use of funds........................................................................................... 33 6.4.3. Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments ................................... 33 
6.5. Targeting specific risks and bu ilding on existing initiatives...................................... 33 
6.5.1. Improving the targeting of disaster pr evention in existing EU instruments .............. 33 
6.5.2. Complementing existing sector al initiatives with other spec ific initiatives, such as an 
EU initiative on forest fires........................................................................................ 34 
6.5.3. Framework legislation on prevention......................................................................... 36 7. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 38 7.1. Comparing the generic impacts of  EU action and no EU action ............................... 38 
7.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 38 7.3. Link the various actors and sectoral policies ............................................................. 38 7.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 39 
EN 4   EN 7.5. Target specific risks buildi ng on existing initiatives ................................................. 39 
7.6. Conclusions on the comparison ................................................................................. 39 7.6.1. Should the EU develop an EU st rategy on disaster prevention?................................ 39 
7.6.2. What are the available options fo r inclusion in th e strategy? .................................... 40 
8. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 40 
EN 5   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
Events such as the disastrous forest fires of  the recent summers as well as floods and droughts 
in different parts of Europe have built a po litical momentum for strengthening not only 
response at EU level but also prevention and recovery. Furthermore, the European 
Parliament1 and the Council have both called for urgent work on disaster prevention2. This 
has been reflected by the Commission in it s Communication on rein forcing the Union’s 
disaster response capacity,3 which announced that there w ould be an initiative on the 
prevention of disasters towards the end of 2008. Th is impact assessment is  intended to inform 
the Commission in view of the adoption of a Communication “A Comm unity approach on the 
prevention of natural and man-made disasters”. This will be the first EU document addressing 
in a comprehensive manner this area of potential  action by the EU. It is intended to trigger 
initial policy discussions be tween EU institutions and c onsultations of stakeholders. 
The Communication will focus on evaluating whether a more comprehensive prevention 
approach could complement and give cohere nce to the existing sectoral and vertical 
approaches and reinforce the added value of Community action. It will cover natural and man-
made disasters within the EU. It will not cover conflict-related complex emergencies.  
At this early stage of policy development, the primary objective of this impact assessment is 
to provide the necessary information to suppor t a policy decision on whether to develop an 
EU strategy on disaster preven tion. A further objective is to  inform a first round of policy 
discussion between the EU institu tions and stakeholders on a wide  range of options that could 
be further explored and assessed for potential inclusion in such a strategy. Thus, this report 
addresses the need for EU ac tion, the potential adde d value of such ac tion and includes a 
proportionate impact assessment of a large range of options, without sugge sting at this early 
stage a final decision on options to  be included in the strategy. 
The European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions will be invited to provide the Commission with further input with a view to consolidating a Community strategy for the prevention of natural and man-made 
disasters. Stakeholders will also  be invited to contribute to the development of the strategy.  
On this basis, the Commission will carry out further consultations to promote this approach 
and if appropriate will propose to develop it further, accompanied by in-depth impact 
assessments of any option selected. 
                                                
 
1 The European Parliament Resolution on the "regional impact of earthquakes" adopted on 14/11/2007 
calls “upon the Commission forthwith to draw up a Communication evaluating the hazards posed by earthquakes and considering the questions of pr evention and management (…)”. It calls on the 
“Commission to evaluate all existing preventive, management and civil protection instruments to deal 
with natural disasters promoted by various EU policies (environment, cohesion policy, research, etc.) 
and to propose, in the interests of simplification and improved coordination, a centralised prevention 
and management instrument”. 
2 The June GAERC adopted Council Conclusions urging the Commission to come up no later than 
October 2008 with a Communication on the prevention of disasters. 
3 COM(2008)130 
EN 6   EN 2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION WITH MEMBER STATES AND 
STAKEHOLDERS  
2.1. Internal preparation 
Work on this impact assessment began in DG environment early in 2007 and was conducted 
with the assistance of an inter-service group that met three times in 2008 bringing together experts from relevant General Directorates.  
The European Environment Agency also took part in one of the meetings.  
The work has also built on the results of tw o external independent  studies undertaken by 
COWI (Denmark) to identify prevention gaps in existing instruments and to analyse the 
approach taken by some Member States to preven tion. In this context, four selected case 
studies have been conducted in France, Portuga l, Romania, and Swede n. The reports provided 
by the consultant are available on the Europa website
4 and are based on an  extensive study of 
existing publications in the area of disaster prevention. 
2.2. External consultation with Member States and stakeholders 
All stakeholders were invited to participate in a consultation meeting held on 14 April 2008 to 
comment on an issues paper, and the Member St ates were asked to pr ovide written comments 
on the paper in May 2008. 
Three specific stakeholder meetings of experts from Member States a nd private organisations 
were held in May 2008 to addres s in detail economic aspects, fo rest fires, and land use/risk 
mapping issues. 
2.3. Key points emerging from the Communication with Member States  
The contributions of the Member Stat es on the issues paper suggest that: 
– There is a need for, and significant added value in, European action in the area of 
disaster prevention. The influence of clim ate change on disasters makes such action 
increasingly necessary. 
– EU action should support and complement na tional policies and measures and should 
take full account of nationa l specificities, in partic ular regarding land planning. 
– The EU should take an integrated approach  addressing all types of disasters and the 
whole disaster cycle, encompassing preven tion, preparedness, response and recovery. 
– Research and work on risk identification an d assessment is an area where the need 
for EU action is particularly clear. 
– Some Member States are calling for targeted funding. 
– Fire prevention is an area where the Co mmunity should consider specific action. 
                                                 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/civil/prevention_overview.htm  
EN 7   EN – There may be scope for EU initiatives to improve the resistance of buildings to 
seismic activity and extreme weather events. 
– Disaster early warning systems should be established and/or strengthened. 
2.4. Key points emerging from the co nsultations with stakeholders 
There is a wide consensus among stakeholders on the need to strengthen disaster prevention 
efforts both at Member State a nd EU level and on the fact that  EU action can provide added-
value in this process. Similar vulnerabilities across Member States, related to complex ex-ante 
and ex-post disaster implications, call for increased coordination and cooperation between 
Member States at EU level, while bearing in mi nd that the protection of citizens is primarily a 
national responsibility. 
Although an overarching multi-hazard approach to  disaster prevention would be valuable in 
the long term, stakeholders' immediate demands focus on specific needs.  
• Need for a knowledge base  
The availability of an adequate knowledge base is essential for any effective preventive action 
at EU level. This involves raising awareness and ensuring adequate information, guidance, 
education, training and research on hazards, prevention needs and measures, for targeted 
stakeholders, decision-makers and the general public, as well as  promoting exchanges of data 
and experience. Although knowledge on hazards a nd vulnerability factors exists in most 
Member States, access to specific informati on should be enhanced, and there should be 
specific research on disaster risk analysis, in  particular through scenario development. 
• Link stakeholders and policies  
The EU could play a key role in supporting th e development of links between the various 
actors and sectors involved in disaster prev ention and in promoting consistency between 
spatial and emergency planning. 
• Funding  
Access to funding for fostering transnational cooperation on prevention should be improved 
by increasing financial resources, by earmarkin g specific funding and by  providing guidance 
to potential applicants. 
• The twin principles of so lidarity and responsibility  
There is a need to strike a balance between  responsibility and solidarity, between damage 
prevention and compensation. Stakeholders’ opini ons are divided on the principle of linking 
damage compensation to particular ex-ante or  ex-post requirements. Economic resilience can 
be ensured through public/private partnershi ps, covering non-insurable losses such as 
moral/social damage and business interruption. Exam ples of good practice in this area exist in 
some Member States. The EU and Member States should en sure full implementation of 
existing disaster prevention provisions. 
• Forest fires 
EN 8   EN On the question of forest fires in particular, stakeholders recommend pr evention to be closely 
linked to forest management. They call for EU support for capacity building, early warning, 
fire investigation measures and targeted co mmunication activities in vulnerable areas. In 
addition, in July 2007, the adviso ry group on forestry and cork  adopted a resolution calling 
for re-establishing a financial instrument fo r forest fire prevention and environmental 
protection. 
2.5. External expertise 
This impact assessment has been conducted by  the Commission with the assistance of a 
consultant specialised in assessments contracted by DG Environment (COWI).  
2.6. Impact Assessment Board 
A first discussion on the Impact Assessment took place on 18 June.  
On 24 June 2008, the Impact Assessment Board issued a first opinion, asking for a 
resubmission of the impact assessment. The new draft sent to the Board on 3 July 2008 
reflected the comments from the Board regarding a more in-depth analysis of the subsidiarity issue. The problem definition was reworked and expanded, and detailed examples of existing 
Member States' initiatives were provided. The new draft also gave an overview of existing 
funding and of existing limits. The drivers for pr eventive action in Member States were added 
to the report, as well as data on the administra tive, social, and environmental impact of the 
options proposed. 
On 28 July 2008, the Impact Assessment Board issued a second opinion, asking for further 
work on several issues. The revised version of  the report provides additional information on 
the problem definition. It clarifies some subsidiarity issues and the value added of a Community intervention. Some clarifications on  policy objectives and op tions have also been 
provided. 
EN 9   EN 3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
3.1. General background: disasters, thei r impacts and benefits of disaster 
prevention 
3.1.1.  Growing number and severity of disasters  
Natural and man-made disasters kill people, destroy property and the environment and pose 
considerable challenges to sustainable development5. 
Natural hazards affect practic ally all the Member  States and candidate countries. They 
encompass many phenomena such as floods, ear thquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, 
avalanches, forest fires and st orms. Although the term “natural” is used to describe these 
hazards, man and human activities are often implic ated to varying degrees in many disasters, 
such as forest fires and floods. At the same time,  natural hazards can lead to disastrous natural 
events which may also have t echnological impacts (power failu res linked to floods and fires, 
chemical pollution linked to earthquake damage). 
Man-made disasters include tec hnological or industrial accidents, but also critical security 
situations. Certain natural disast ers tend to be recurrent, while technological disasters usually 
are not. Large and infrequent disasters can cause  rare but significant negative impacts, while 
the impacts of smaller, recurrent disasters can turn out to be comparatively expensive in the 
long term. 
Statistics on the number of natural and technolog ical disasters in the various Member States 
are attached to the imp act assessment study (Annex 1)6. Statistics show that all Member 
States have to cope with the consequences of disasters.  
Floods (151 between 2000 and 2008) and wind st orms (98 between 2000 and 2008) are the 
most prevalent natural disasters reported. 68  extreme temperature events and 11 earthquakes 
were reported between 2000 and 2008. Forest fire s and other wild fires are a recurrent 
phenomenon: the occurrence of such fires varies  from year to year in intensity and in 
geographical location. 
Regarding the frequency of disasters, data on disaster occurrence and their physical and 
economic impact remains indicative at best. It  is however possible to  distinguish between: 
– Disasters that happen in one or more countries and have no direct spill-over effect, 
such as forest fires, earthquakes, or indus trial accidents. Such disasters may strike 
different Member States at different times, but might also happen simultaneously and 
become a transnational concern. For example,  the forest fires in Portugal in 2003 and 
2005 demonstrated the need for further coll aboration between countries (e.g. on fire 
suppression, training, and information exchan ge). It should be borne in mind that 
                                                 
5 The Centre for Research on the Ep idemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a disaster as “a situation or 
event which overwhelms lo cal capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international level for 
external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudd en event that causes great damage, destruction and 
human suffering”. 
6 Disasters reported in the EM-DAT database maintained by CRED  (Collaborating Centre for Research 
on the Epidemiology of Disasters)  
EN 10   EN large national disasters with  no direct physical spill-ov er effect on other Member 
States may nevertheless produce signifi cant negative impacts on national socio-
economic or structural conditions, ultim ately requiring EU intervention, not only 
through the Solidarity Fund but also to rest ore the general socio-economic situation 
indirectly affected by the disaster.  
– Disasters with clear spill- over effects for several c ountries, such as floods, wind 
storms, or tsunamis. For example, record -breaking rainfall am ounts and intensities 
were observed in central Eu rope during the fi rst half of August 2002: the Vltava 
submerged parts of the city of Prague, the Elbe flooded parts of Dresden. Parts of the 
Danube catchment were also affected by severe flooding.  
Disasters are increasing in frequency and magnitude  
Annex 1 gives detailed information on disast ers in EU-27 between 2000 and 2007 reported in 
the Emergency Database of Di sasters (EMDAT database).  
During this period the 494 disa sters experienced by the EU-277 killed 79 342 people and had 
a total cost of €103 billion. The ma jority of deaths occurred in  Member States affected by 
extreme temperatures, in particular during th e 2003 summer, while floods caused most of the 
economic costs, in part icular in 2000, 2002 and 2007. 
As illustrated in the following graphs, disa sters are increasing bot h in frequency and 
magnitude. Globally, since 1975, the number of na tural disasters has in creased from around 
75 to more than 400 a year. This is almost en tirely caused by an increase in weather-related 
disasters: over the last three years hydro-mete orological disasters increased by more than 
100%, from about 100 in 2004 to more than 200 in 20068.In the EU-27, over the 1990-2007 
period, there was a dramatic trend of increasing number and severity of  both natural and man-
made disasters, with a steeper  increase in na tural disasters. In the EU-27, the number of 
natural disasters reported increase d from 43 in 1974-1978 to 288 in 1999-20039.  
Natural disasters inflict co nsiderable damage and costs 
The reported cost of estimated damages10 from disasters in th e EU-27 between 1974 and 1978 
was 16 042 million USD11. For the 1999-2003 period the repor ted total damage was 52 153 
million USD12, more than a threefold increase. This  relative increase is higher than that 
experienced by the global damage costs, that only doubled in the same period from 108 200 
million USD13 (1974-1978) to 216 962 million USD14 (1999-2003)CRED (2004) Thirty years 
                                                 
7 For a disaster to be entered into the database, at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled : 10 
or more people killed, 100 or more people affected, declaration of a state of emergency, call for international assistance 
8 EMDAT database 
9 EMDAT database 
10 Since there is no standard procedure to dete rmine a global figure for economic impact, several 
institutions have developed methodologies to quantify these losses in their specific domain. See 
http://www.emdat.be/ExplanatoryNotes/explanotes.html. 
11 Costs in USD at 2003 value. The equivalent amount in Euros, estimated on the basis of the exchange 
rate applied on the 2nd January 2003 by the European Central bank, is € 16,757 million. 
12 Approximately € 54,479 million using the mentioned exchange rate 
13 Approximately € 113,000 million (2003 exchange) 
14 Approximately € 227,000 million (2003 exchange) 
EN 11   EN of natural disasters 1974-2003. Presently, the ec onomic cost of disasters in Europe is 
estimated at 15 billion Euros yearly15. 
Insurance companies are directly affected: in 2004 natural events caused indemnity payments 
of over €1.6 billion, according to reports from nati onal insurance organisations to the Insurers 
of Europe (CEA, 2006)16. It has to be borne in mind that th e cost to society is considerably 
higher than the cost to the insurance companies.  Because of certain a ssets not being covered 
by insurance, total damage is thus greater than insured damage17. 
Indirect costs resulting from disast ers can also affect the financial markets, in particular credit 
ratings and interest rates. Increases in financ ial cost (cost of capital and increased risk 
premiums) may also affect the co mpetitiveness of European busin ess. In addition, the cost of 
a disaster and the risk of future disasters mu st be spread amongst stakeholders. Within the 
European Union the insurance coverage for e .g. storms and flooding differs greatly, with the 
state providing guarantees in some countries and not  in others. This affects the risk borne by 
the insurance company, as well as risk premiums.  
Disasters are increasingly caus ing transboundary impacts  
Disasters do not recognise bor ders, and some disasters are increasingly having transboundary 
impacts linked in particular to the infrastruc tural interconnections between Member States. 
For example the Baia Mare spill of cyanide, in north-west Romania, in 2000, lead to water 
contamination through drainage systems reaching several large international rivers before 
eventually reaching the Black Sea. Other exam ples in 2002 were the devastating floods along 
the Danube and Elbe rivers in Central Europe , flooding in Southern France, and the Prestige 
oil spill18. Other types of accidents may have transbounda ry impacts, such as the forest fires 
of the summer of 2007. 
An adverse event affecting a si ngle EU Member State or a sma ll group of Member States can 
have an impact in terms of compensation reque sted through the Solidarity Fund, but also has a 
general impact on its sustainable socio- economic development and on EU cohesion, 
potentially increasing its general financing ne eds with regard to the national and the EU 
budget.  
The cross-border dimension has to  be taken into consideration, as different protection levels 
for citizens in the different Member States or regions may imply a different level of 
vulnerability for similar events, impl ying increased costs and damages.  
A growing demand for the civil protection Mechanism 
                                                 
15 ABI (2005) and Munich Re (2008).  
16 This number only includes reports from the countries that supplied information to the CEA. The 
indemnity on European level is thus considerably higher than estimated here. 
17 This was the case with the winter storm Gerda in  January 2004. The insured damage was worth €80.5 
million, whereas the total damage was estimated to be €104.7 million (CEA 2006). 
18 Mapping the impact of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe, European 
Environment Agency, Copenhagen 2003. 
EN 12   EN The Community Mechanism for ci vil protection is increasingly  recognised by European and 
international actors, as illustrated by  the following graphs. Its main role19 is to facilitate co-
operation on civil protection assistance in the ev ent of major emergencies requiring a rapid 
response. Investment in disaster  preparedness and response can provide a short-term solution 
to immediate risks, and is often an essentia l element to ensure the safety of populations. 
However, particularly in the case of recurrent disa sters, the cost of response can turn out to be 
relatively heavy in the long term , not only for the country aff ected but also in terms of 
external solidarity.  
3.1.2.  A wide range of affected actors 
Vulnerability to natural and man-made disaster s is increasing, due to increasingly intensive 
land use, industrial development, urban expans ion and infrastructure construction, and to 
climate change. 
The vulnerability to natural or man-made disasters is often the result of multiple risks. The 
impact of natural hazards may be aggravated  by factors linked to human activity (e.g. floods 
vs water basin planning, intensive socio-economic investment in risk-prone areas, inadequate 
technical standards for construction in risk-p rone areas). Conversely, technological risks can 
be aggravated by natural conditions, with technological impacts adding to natural impacts (earthquake causing damage to structur es containing dangerous substances). 
All EU inhabitants may be affected or suffer fr om the impacts of disasters in various ways: 
damage to human health and casualties, damage to  the environment, direct or indirect damage 
to economic assets, private prope rty, or infrastructu re. Depending on the type of disaster, 
direct impacts may also affect public administra tion, in particular its organisational model, the 
funding mechanisms, the information and comm unication procedures. Sudden disasters are 
likely to affect all sectors (economic sect ors, public administra tion, civil society). 
The potential impact of a disaster varies w ithin the EU, depending on the vulnerability and 
resilience of the Member States. The impact of  the different disaster s on the population also 
varies depending on the type of disaster. In the EU, disasters caused by extreme temperatures 
have led to over 75 000 casualties since 2000, re presenting 95% of all deaths caused by 
disasters. 76% of these deaths  occurred in France, Italy a nd Spain. Flooding, which killed 524 
people in 2000-2008, is more widespread and ha s high economic impacts. Vulnerability to 
floods appears to be particularly  high in Romania (38% of the deaths) followed by Italy (15%) 
and Bulgaria (15%). 
3.2. A fragmented approach to disaster mitigation 
Prevention is an integral part of the disaster management cycle. The impacts of disasters may 
be reduced by measures aiming at preventing the disasters and their impacts, enhancing 
preparedness and response, and ensuring eff ective recovery/reconstruction. Furthermore, 
potential measures in these areas require a ra nge of instruments, which may fall within the 
competence of different ministries and involve  a diversity of private and public actors. 
                                                
 
19 Council Decision 2001/792 of 23 October 2001, recast by Council Decision 2007/779 of 8 November 
2007. 
EN 13   EN For these reasons, in the Communication COM(2008)130 on rein forcing the Union’s disaster 
response capacity to take an integrated appr oach to disasters, the Commission proposed 
encompassing all phases, embracing all tools and instruments, and addressing all categories of 
disasters. Stakeholder c onsultations have also highlighted th e fact that emerge ncy planning is 
often technically and administra tively disconnected from spatia l planning, and can hinder or 
delay response.  
3.2.1.  Current situation at EU level  
Currently, the approach to disaster prevention is fragmented. The EU has adopted directives 
on flooding and on industrial accidents (Seveso Di rective) but has not addressed other types 
of disasters such as earthquakes,  storms or forest fires. Fu rthermore, disaster prevention 
projects may be eligible for financing under various financial instru ments which could be 
better coordinated. Finally, pol icies affecting land  planning, such as  environmental, 
agricultural, transport, energy and regional policie s, could be better coordi nated with regard to 
disaster prevention.  
3.2.2.  Current situation in Member States  
Preventive action is often fragmented 
In Member States, the approach to di saster prevention is also fragmented20. However, recent 
trends in most Member States lean towards increased integration a nd coordination between 
actors and policies involved in disaster prevention. Preventive action tends to be taken in the 
wake of a disaster and concen trate on a particular type of disaster. Nevertheless, Member 
States find that it can be difficult to maintain long-term political momentum and 
corresponding budget allocations as time elapses from the particular disaster that caused political attention. 
The drivers of a prevention polic y differ between Member States  
Member States have developed effective an d well-coordinated mechanisms for crisis 
management for a long time. Disaster prevention as a discipline in its own right, however, is a 
new area. This is also reflected in the fact th at the concept of prevention is not defined in a 
unique manner, neither across countrie s nor within a sp ecific country. 
The main drive behind the deve lopment of prevention approaches is to be found in the 
obligations stemming from EU le gislation and international commitments in general, and in 
the understanding that the overall risk picture is changing. For instance, in Sweden, the wind 
storms in 2003 were the main reason for the implementation of a new legislation concerning 
the prevention of accidents in 2004. In France, the heat wave in 2003 was the starting point for a national heat disaster prev ention plan. In Romania, the water directive has lead to the 
development of risk maps. The Netherlands a nd the UK suffered great damage and loss of life 
in 1953 due to catastr ophic coastal flooding
21 which had an impact on the development of 
prevention policies. In the UK, an early-warning  system warns people in vulnerable areas at 
least two hours before the floodi ng occurs; in the Netherlands , flood barriers have been 
developed.  
                                                 
20 Member States’ approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 
21 The Thames Estuary Partnership Web 2008 a, and Olsthoorn & Tol 2001. 
EN 14   EN A gradual loss of prevention culture at individual level  
In Member States, early warning systems and risk mapping are integr al aspects of civil 
protection and widely acknowledged as impor tant tools in prevention. Case studies22 seem to 
indicate that the new Member St ates and Member States with high risk exposur e relative to 
their economic capabilities are positive towards strong joint efforts and obligations.  
On the other hand, the same studies show a loss of prevention culture at the individual level. 
Somehow, prevention seems to be perceived by the citizen as a societal responsibility at the 
expense of individual precautions: citizens, indu stries and other actors might therefore be 
reluctant to take appropriate prevention meas ures proactively. Prevention at the individual 
level also depends on insurance policy: in so me Member States the insurance system is 
compulsory, solidarity-based and guaranteed by the State. This implies that all property 
owners are covered, no matter what their financ ial situation is. In some cases insurance is 
combined with spatial planning, whereby insu rance entitlement depe nds on compliance with 
regulations governing identified risk zones. In such cases the main challenge seems to be 
enforcement and control.  
All Member States provide incentives for be tter individual preven tion behaviour through 
awareness building and educationa l efforts. Some involve local communities in the framing of 
plans and actions, or perform information campaigns. 
The organisational structure of Member States has an impact on their prevention policy.  
The internal administrative structure within Memb er States also determines the way in which 
prevention measures are designed and implem ented. While some Member States have a 
highly centralised structure, others see decentral ised organisation as a strategic approach to 
disaster prevention. For instance, while in a count ry like France prevention responsibilities are 
concentrated at the national level, in others su ch as Portugal and Sweden  they are devolved to 
the regional and local levels. The understanding here is that knowledge of local conditions and a cross-sectoral approach at the local level are a strength.  
3.3. Specific problems 
The preparatory work and the cons ultations of the Member States  and stakeholders have lead 
to the identification of four specific probl ems which are discussed in this section: 
– the lack of a consistent knowledge base; 
– limited or non-existent links amongst the various actors and policy areas; 
– EU funds could better contribu te to disaster prevention; 
– the lack of prevention measures re garding certain specific disasters. 
                                                
 
22 Member States approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 
EN 15   EN 3.3.1.  The lack of a consistent knowledge base 
Recent research has shown that “an adequate an d consistent normative framework is essential 
to implement risk management”23. For instance, “the lack of, a nd need for, a global statistical 
fire database, by which the economic and ecologi c impact of fires c ould be spatially and 
temporarily quantified, was identified”24.  
Currently, data and information on occurrences, ri sks, consequences and costs of disasters, 
their wider impacts and the relevant policy res ponses, are at best indi cative. They are not 
systematically made available or shared at EU level, leading to inequalities and loss of cohesion between disaster-prone  regions. Furthermore, the ba sic information on risks of 
disasters is being developed via a vari ety of methodologies which may generate 
inconsistencies and lack of comparability, potentially resulting in divergent awareness and protection levels. There is no cross-cutting coordination mechanism to ensure dissemination 
of best practices or an enhan ced focus on applied research.  
The intersection between policy needs and sc ientific/technical data, the links between 
vulnerability assessment and legislation are not always clearly identified or transparent. The 
evaluation of risk and risk acceptance levels fo r policy-makers, professionals and citizens may 
be prejudiced by incomplete, ambiguous or exces sively complicated information, resulting in 
unrealistic risk perceptions.  
3.3.2.  Limited or non-existent links amongs t the various actors and policy areas 
Existing EU action relating directly or indirec tly to the prevention of disasters has been 
developed specifically to address well defined i ssues such as floods or technological disasters 
(e.g. SEVESO). Coordination is needed to define  priorities and organi se mutual synergies. 
Furthermore, measures taken in the manageme nt disaster cycle (pre vention, preparedness, 
response, recovery) could be better coordina ted. This is generally acknowledged to be the 
necessary consequence of the fact that disa sters may touch upon nume rous policy areas and 
involve a variety of actors. 
For example, urban planning and emergency pl anning criteria are often established and 
monitored by different administ rations at different levels , often without any mutual 
information or consultation. Prevention rare ly features in emergency exercises and 
simulations. There is also potential for reinforc ing the links between actors subject to the 
SEVESO Directive such as the chemical indus try, emergency planning experts, or land-use 
planning experts. 
Nevertheless, the studies conducted in some Member States
25 (Romania, France, Sweden, 
Portugal) showed that in some Member Stat es, links are being de veloped between public 
institutions. For example, the Swedish Rescue Services Agency was chosen as one of the main institutions to implement the EU SEVESO Directive in or der to take advantage of an 
                                                
 
23 A new pattern of risk management: the Hyogo framework for action and Italian practise. Marialuce 
Stanganelli .Department of Urban and Regional Plan ning and Earth Sciences, University of Napoli, 
2007. 
24 Fire Management Working Paper FM 18 E, FAO 2006. 
25 Member States’ approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 
EN 16   EN organisation with cross-cutting structures. In France, following the heat wave of 2003, a heat 
wave prevention plan involving variou s administrations has been developed. 
3.3.3.  EU funds could better contri bute to disaster prevention 
Existing funding sources include the financing of preventive action from private and public 
sources, from Member States a nd from the EU. The funding possibil ities are substantial: there 
is therefore no genera l scarcity of funding. 
Private sector investment focuses on specific pr ojects rather than comprehensive industry or 
cross-industry initiatives. A ccording to various studies26, four main industries are the most 
active in prevention investments: insurers a nd reinsurers, engineer ing and construction, 
information communication technology and tel ecoms, and utilities and transportation. At 
national level, the main source  of assistance comes from publ ic funds, in particular to 
compensate for damage and losses due to extrem e weather events in the most affected weaker 
regions. At EU level, a number of EU financial mechanisms exist that may specifically support prevention, but these are in some cases limited in resources, e.g. LIFE+ and the Civil 
Protection Financial Instrument.  
The annual budget of LIFE+ in 2008 totals nearly  250 Mil €, distributed between three wide 
thematic areas. In this framework, prevention refers specifically to two topics only: forest fires and waste. The scope of LIFE+ with regard  to forest fire prevention and suppression is 
limited to information and communication action within the EU, such as training for agents 
involved in forest fire prevention and awaren ess raising campaigns for rural populations 
affected by forest and woodland fires.  
The Civil Protection Financial Instrument (20 Mil € in 2008) virtua lly covers the whole 
spectrum of possible disaster prevention measur es, defining preventio n as “any action that 
supports Member States in preventing risk or reducing harm to people, the environment or 
property resulting from emergencies.” In 2008, an amount of 1.1 Mil € has been earmarked 
for a call for proposals for prevention projects.  
The funding possibilities through Structural Fund s and Cohesion Policy are substantial and 
are programmed by the Member States. Th e Convergence objective under the Regional 
Development Fund, in particular , specifically includes risk pr evention. However, Structural 
and Cohesion financial coverage is frequently limited to certain groups of member States and 
does not necessarily cover risks arising from non-structural factors. 
The exploratory studies carried out in four member States prior to the present Impact 
Assessment, as well as the stakeholder consulta tion, have highlighted the wish both from the 
administration and business for strategic guidan ce on how to set prioriti es in the field of 
prevention and for a single entr y point for providing informati on and advice on disaster 
prevention measures and funding sources. 
                                                
 
26 Building resilience to natural disasters: a framewo rk for private sector engagement, World Economic 
Forum, January 2008. 
EN 17   EN 3.3.4.  The lack of prevention measures for specific disasters  
Certain disasters have been addressed at the EU level, for example flooding and technological 
accidents. These examples show that ver tical policies can obtain results, including 
accelerating efforts and easing the planning a nd implementation of policies and actions. 
Other important disasters have not been speci fically addressed. In particular, building on 
existing measures taken at EU a nd national level, there is a need to explore whether a more 
comprehensive EU approach to the prevention of  forest fires could be implemented. Forest 
fires are one of the most frequent disasters in  the EU, and for which experience shows that the 
EU may provide useful support a nd complement national policies. The issue of forest and other 
wild fires therefore requires comprehensive scientific knowledge and policies covering and 
linking prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.   
3.4. Expected evolution of these problems 
The frequency of natural disasters is expected  to increase, as emphasised by the Commission 
in the Green Paper on adaptation to climate change.  
According to the EEA27 “warm periods, including heat wa ves, are expected to be more 
intense, more frequent and longer-la sting”. According to the IPCC report28 “climate-related 
hazards will mostly increase”. In particular “w inter floods are likely to increase in maritime 
regions and flash floods are likely to increa se throughout Europe”, “ catastrophic fires are 
expected on drained peatlands in central Europe”. As human activity and settlements make 
land use more intensive, man-made  risks are likely to increase. 
This may be somewhat mitigated as the Member St ates are, at different levels and to different 
degrees, taking steps towards di saster prevention, for example in the area of risk mapping. 
However, the development of different approaches by Member States will also have adverse effects, notably in terms of increased diffi culties in building syne rgies between national 
approaches and developing a consis tent knowledge base on disasters. 
3.5. The grounds for EU action 
Disaster prevention actions are a transnational issue 
Although there are differences in  vulnerability to different types of disasters among the 
Member States, disaster prevention is a transnational issue. 
One can distinguish between: 
– actions on disasters occurring in one co untry, with no spil l-over effects, but 
which may deserve Community action in terms of solidarity;  
In many cases disasters only affect one Member  State or specific regions of one Member 
State. For instance, most of western Europe  suffers relatively few significant landslides
29. By 
                                                 
27 EEA (2007): Europe’s Environment, the fourth assessment. 
28 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II Report “Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability”. 
29 Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters an d technological incident s in Europe, European 
Environment Agency report, 2003. 
EN 18   EN contrast, the Mediterranean basi n (e.g. southern Italy and the eastern  Iberian Peninsula) and 
the mountain regions of central a nd eastern Europe are particularly vulnerabl e to these events. 
The vulnerability increases if  urbanisation and poor forest  management are present.  
– action on disasters with spill- over effects in several countries; 
The large river systems of wester n, central and eastern Europe, as  well as the smaller streams 
of the Mediterranean, make these areas vulnerabl e to flooding. Similarly, southern Europe is 
prone to drought, the Mediterran ean and eastern Europe to fore st fires, western Europe and 
the British Isles to storms, mount ain areas such as the Alps, th e Pyrenees and the Carpathians 
to avalanches and specific areas such as the central and eastern Medi terranean to earthquakes 
and volcanic eruptions. 
Major disasters, notably disast ers related to extrem e weather conditions such as flooding or 
forest fires, tend to affect several Member Stat es at the same time or over a limited span of 
time. For example, the 2002 floods inflicted significant damage to regions in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Spain, Germany, Roma nia, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Hungary. The 
2007 forest fires burnt large areas in Bulgaria , Greece, Italy, and Spain, whilst the 2003 forest 
fires hit Portugal, Spain, Fran ce and Italy. Moreover, with a changing climate there are 
indications that the risk of weather-related di sasters is becoming less specific to particular 
geographical areas. 
– other measures  
Much of disaster risk prevention draws on a common set of methodol ogies, instruments and 
tools, such as risk identifi cation, mapping and assessment. Thes e non disaster-specific aspects 
concern all EU Member States.  
Equivalent safety and protection across the EU 
All EU citizens are entitled to an equivalent level of safety and protection on the territory of 
the EU.  
Lack of Community action would dam age the interests of Member States. 
The increasing number of seve re disasters across the EU does not only have a local 
dimension. The accumulation of impacts may affect  economic growth of the EU as a whole. 
EU citizens expect the EU to act  
According to a special Eurobarome ter report published in March 2008
30, Europeans attach an 
overwhelming importance to protecting the envi ronment. 78% of respondents indicated that 
environmental problems have a dir ect effect on their daily lives.  
Cost of inaction  
A recent OECD study31 points to the fact that while th e economic risks associated with 
natural disasters (e.g. floods, hurricanes) can only be part ly reduced through public policy 
                                                 
30 “Attitudes of European citizens to wards the environment”, Special Eurobarometer 295/ Wave 68.2 — 
TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission, March 2008.  
EN 19   EN measures (e.g. mitigation of climate change, fl ood prevention measures), the cost of inaction 
in these areas can also be considerable. 
The OECD study also states that environment-re lated industrial hazards such as oil spills and 
land contamination are already generating si gnificant costs of inaction. For example, 
experience in Europe and US indicates that the cost of cleaning up or restoring damaged 
ecosystems after industrial accidents can be billions of Euros. Moreover, due to the 
irreversible nature of some of the associated im pacts, the real losses to society will be higher 
than these direct financial costs (no matter how comprehensive the remediation efforts may be). 
It can also be inferred that, in quantitative te rms, economic losses from natural disasters are 
likely to be proportional to the affected count ry’s GDP. However, the qualitative impact of 
natural disasters is likely to be more devastating for the poor (low-GDP EU Member States or 
low-income groups of citizens in any EU Memb er State). Therefore, in the absence of 
prevention measures within the EU: 
– rich Member States would tend to suffer higher economic losses in strict economic 
terms, partly because of the c oncentration of crucial assets;  
– poorer Member States or population groups would be more severely impacted and 
thwarted in fulfilling their economic poten tial, thus countering the effects of 
cohesion policies. 
EU Institutions call for EU action  on prevention of disasters. 
The EESC has welcomed
32 the future Commission in itiative on prevention.  
The conclusions of the European Council me eting of 19-20 June stated that: “§24. The 
European Council welcomes ongoing efforts to reinforce the Union’s disaster-management 
capacities and stresses the need for a coordinate d approach to managing disasters. It invites 
the Council, the Commission and Member States  to take this work forward rapidly.” 
On 16 June GAERC adopted conclusions on th e Commission Communi cation on reinforcing 
the Union’s disaster response capacity. Re garding disaster prevention, the Council 
emphasised the need for a balanced approach guided by two principles: national responsibility, whereby each Member State take s appropriate preventive and operational 
measures for the protection and safety of pe ople, the environment and property; and EU 
solidarity, which is the basis fo r the provision of assistance re ndered on request to Member 
States and third countries and their people, wh en affected by a disaster that exceeds their 
response capacity.  
At the June 19
th plenary session, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution33 on the 
Union’s disaster response capac ity. Regarding prevention, Parliame nt in particular urged the 
Commission to submit a package of legally bi nding instruments (e.g. a framework directive) 
with a view to filling in gaps in existing EU  legislation, policies a nd programmes as regards 
                                                                                                                                                         
31 Cost of Inaction on Environmental Policy Changes, Summary Report ENV/EPOC (2007)16 Final. 
32 EESC Opinion “Improving the civil protection Mechanis m — a response to natural disasters” (2008/03/13).  
33 European Parliament Resolution of 19 June 2008 on stepping up the Union’s disaster response capacity. 
EN 20   EN disaster prevention and response. It recomm ended that such a comprehensive framework 
should comprise three pillars,  with a view to stepping up  prevention under existing EU 
mechanisms and Member State approaches, developing a new framework approach on 
disaster prevention, and supporting furthe r development of prevention knowledge and 
technology through EU research a nd development programmes.  
4. OBJECTIVES  
Member States already have, to varying degrees, policies aimed at  the prevention of disasters. 
Action at Community level should therefore co mplement national actions and focus on areas 
where a common approach is more effectiv e than separate national approaches.  
The overall objective of the Co mmunication is to identify meas ures which could be included 
in a Community strategy on disaster preventi on that would bridge the existing gaps, link 
various sectors and initiative s and be the overall policy framework for initialising sector 
specific and/or thematic initiatives, horizon tal and cross cutting t ools and guidelines for 
disaster prevention in EU-27. On this basis, existing thematic or  sectoral initiatives should be 
complemented and gaps should be filled to ad apt the existing policy framework to the overall 
approach to the prevention of disasters. 
This overall aim is expected to be achieve d through the following specific objectives:  
– build a consistent knowledge base on disasters; 
– link the various actors and policies; 
– improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters; 
– better target specific risks 
Without duplicating existing policies at EU a nd national level, the in itiative will cover both 
natural and man-made disasters. The implementa tion of the first three objectives will have an 
impact on disasters as a whol e and will not distinguish be tween natural and man-made 
disasters, as natural hazards can lead to di sastrous natural events which may also have 
technological impacts (power fa ilures linked to floods and fires,  chemical pollution linked to 
earthquake damage). The fourth objective w ill nevertheless disti nguish clearly between 
natural and man-made disasters as  it is aimed at targeting speci fic risks, and de voting specific 
instruments to them.  
4.1. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 
There is a need for a systematic exchange of  information and experience and to develop 
common methodologies for the collec tion of data on disasters, its analysis and interpretation, 
drawing inter alia  on information and communication technologies. This would make the 
aggregation of data and informa tion possible and thereby facilitat e a more general analysis of 
issues related to disasters. Furthermore, a pooling of information and experience could ease 
the work and save time and resources that are needed for implementing disaster prevention in 
the EU. It would also improve the basis on which to perfor m assessments of effects of 
disasters and cost-benefit assessments  of disaster prevention measures. 
EN 21   EN 4.2. Link the various actors and sectoral  policies throughout the disaster 
management cycle 
It is necessary to make all existing policies wo rk in a direction which is on the one hand not 
detrimental to disaster prevention efforts and, on the other hand, can support and accelerate 
such efforts. This requires linking sectoral polic ies to provide a basis for an overall approach 
and coordinating measures taken regarding th e disaster management  cycle (prevention, 
preparedness, response, recovery). 
4.3. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 
Currently, a number of EU funds  may provide support to proj ects and programmes including 
the prevention of disasters. There is a need fo r better targeti ng of such funding and for more 
immediate links between the funded actio ns and the prevention of disasters. 
4.4. Better target specific risks, bu ilding on existing initiatives 
A number of EU legal instru ments already exist today, and new initiatives are expected. 
Building on existing initiatives, gaps should be filled to target  specific risks.  
5. OPTIONS  
This chapter outlines the options available. 
Firstly, the baseline described in section 5.1. characterises a situation where no further EU 
action is taken regarding the prevention of disasters. This option and its assessment later in 
this report aim at informing the policy decision  on whether or not to develop an EU strategy 
on disaster prevention. 
Secondly, sections 5.2 to 5.5 descri be the various options availabl e in the four areas of action 
identified in chapter 4. These are not mutually exclusive unless otherwise indicated. It should 
be noted that these options embrace a range of levels of ambition. 
5.1. Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters 
The baseline for no further EU action op tion can be described as one where: 
– Member States progress at a different pace and with different levels of ambition with 
regard to developing  consistent, comprehensive and operational strategies and plans 
for disaster prevention; 
– Vertical gaps in terms of insufficient or non-existent prevention plans may subsist in 
certain sectors, but not in ot hers, or in some countries; 
– There is a tendency for a reactive approach to dominate; 
– No effort is made on the comparability of  tools and measures such as risk mapping 
and vulnerability assessments.  
EN 22   EN 5.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 
Specific objectives for building a consiste nt knowledge base on disasters include: 
• An initiative on risk mapping 
Community action in the field of risk mapping can  add value by contributing to an equal level 
of safety and protecti on throughout the Community. 
In this context, possible options, not mutually exclusive, could include:  
– developing general principles and minimum preven tion guidelines. EU guidelines 
could be based on Member States' best prac tices regarding vulnerability assessments 
and the use of risk maps. The role of the private sector in this field (insurance 
companies) should also be considered. As  a first step, the Community guidelines 
could focus on disasters causing pote ntial transboundary  consequences; 
– fostering cooperation between Member Stat es in developing a common approach for 
analysing the potential vulnerabil ity of defined geographical areas; 
– EU legislation aimed at defi ning the methodologies for risk  identificati on, evaluation 
and mapping by the Member States as well as a timetable for creating and updating 
risk maps. The general purpose of risk maps  would be to plan effective preventive 
action in areas prone to natural and man-made disasters in Europe and the prioritisation of risks for which preventi ve action should be taken according to 
national norms.  
• A disaster observatory 
This would compile existing data and informa tion on disasters in the EU. It would also 
identify comparability issues and data/inform ation gaps, propose co mmon methodologies and 
undertake projects together with  concerned parties. Where relevant, it would work closely 
with the environmental data centres established by Eurostat, the joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency. It would also work closely with other exchange platforms 
related to disasters, such as the European Fo rest Information System EFFIS, the European 
Flood Alert System EFAS, the European Co mmunity Urgent Radiological Information 
Exchange ECURIE, the Natural and Environmental Disaster Information Exchange System NEDIES and the European Droughts Observatory currently being establ ished by the European 
Commission. It would also provi de input for continuing research and pilot validation on 
prevention of disasters thr ough the framework programme fo r research and technological 
development.  
One of the objectives of the di saster observatory would be to  collect, store, and assess 
guidelines, best practices, and disa ster case histories and to facilitate exchange of information. 
It would promote a series of studies on lessons  learnt in Member States — from emergency 
action after accidents and disasters to drafting gu idelines on information to be communicated 
to the public — including the priv ate sector — on major hazards. 
EN 23   EN Action in this field should be in line with SEIS principles34 and build upon the 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive and further development of the GMES initiative, as a basis for improving respectively the sharing of disaster-related data and information within 
Europe and the provision of services to public policy-makers and citizens. 
• The launching of projects under the Civ il Protection Financial Instrument  
Projects on the development of common methodol ogies for data acquisition and information 
generation on disasters in the EU could provide guidance to the Member States.  
5.3. Improved linking between acto rs and sectoral policies throughout the disaster 
management cycle 
Non mutually exclusive specific options for li nking the various actors  and sectoral policies 
include: 
• Developing best practices and guide lines involving prevention aspects  
Lessons learnt during assessm ents carried out in  cooperation with Member States after 
emergencies, currently focusing on prepare dness and response aspect s, could include a 
prevention dimension.  
• A multisectoral steering group 
The Commission would set up a steering group co mprising representativ es of the various 
sectors concerned and applying an open meth od of coordination. The group would identify 
needs regarding the linkage of policies th roughout the disaster management cycle, 
recommend actions to be taken at national a nd EU level to enhance the links between the 
relevant policies at national and EU levels, and monitor the implementation of the 
recommendations. Its activities could also includ e the follow-up of other options such as the 
activities of the disast er observatory (section 5.2.) or the development and implementation of 
guidance on the use of EU funds (section 5.4.). The stee ring group might also draw up 
guidelines and recommendations on more technical areas (e.g. content of a disaster prevention 
report, guidelines for risk mapping, recommen dations for research and funding). It would 
build upon existing initiativ es at Community level
35 
5.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 
Specific options to improve the use of EU  funds for preventin g disasters include: 
– Specific funding: a specific disaster prevention fi nancial instrument would be 
created to finance national initiatives for preventing disasters. It would be 
multisectoral in nature. 
                                                 
34 Communication “Towards a shared environmental information system”(SEIS) COM(2008)46 final. 
35 In this context the Commission's 'Regions for economic change' initiative35 (COM(2006)675) already 
offers a framework for the development of such platfo rms. Within its thirty pr iority themes, three are 
focused on risk prevention and provide an opportunity for regions across Europe to exchange 
experience and spread good practice. 
EN 24   EN – Guidance on use of funds : the Commission would develo p in cooperation with the 
experts of the Member States guidance on the use of EU funds for preventing 
disasters. This would include mapping EU  instruments capable of fund disaster 
prevention activities, recommendations on th e use of the funds, and a catalogue of 
prevention measures to be considered by th e Member States for funding by the EU in 
the light of their national conditions. The Commission would use these guidelines to 
assess and report on the re levant EU expenditure. 
– Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments: in the review 
cycles of EU funds, provisions would be a dded to the legal bases of the funds on a 
programming of measures on disaster pr evention to be financed by the funds. 
Specific funding radically differs  from the other two options a nd could not be combined with 
these. 
5.5. Better target specific risks build ing on existing initiatives 
Specific sectoral prevention ini tiatives may be required using inter alia  the experience 
acquired in the implementation of relevant Dire ctives such as the Fl oods and the SEVESO 
Directive. Non mutually exclusive specific op tions for reviewing and complementing existing 
initiatives include: 
• Improving the targeting of preventi on in existing EU instruments 
This option would consist of a screening of existing instruments to identify ways of 
improving the targeting of disaster prevention in national and EU policies. The identified improvements would be integrated into the issu es considered in the review cycles of the 
instruments concerned. For example, the re view cycle of the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive, as amended,
36 could potentially examine whether the environmental 
impact assessment of individual projects sufficien tly addresses the direct and indirect effects 
on disaster risk prevention. The review of EU  legislation on major industrial accidents could 
assess the effectiveness of the provisions of th e SEVESO Directive in relation to prevention 
in the context of the ongoing review of the Directive. 
• Complementing existing sectoral initiatives wi th other specific initiatives, such as an 
EU initiative on forest fires 
Certain disasters ha ve not yet been addressed at EU leve l. In particular, building on existing 
measures, there is a need to explore whethe r a more comprehensive EU approach to the 
prevention of forest fires could be implemented.  
An EU initiative (such as a dir ective) on forest fires and other wild fires would therefore have 
the objectives to cover inter alia  requirements for:  
– risk mapping and risk analysis to al low for prioritised prevention work; 
                                                 
36 OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40-48. 
EN 25   EN – preventive measures for the Member States  to consider in th eir national prevention 
strategies, including awareness raising, i nvolvement of private and public actors, 
dialogue with citizens; 
– a common, reliable statistical fire database37. 
• Developing framework legislation on prevention  
This would provide an overall framework for prevention and include provisions for building 
the necessary links at national level between the relevant services and instruments. The 
objective would be to formulate a compre hensive prevention approach that would 
complement and give coherence to the existing s ectoral and vertical approaches and reinforce 
the added value of existing Community action. Th e aim would be to cr eate synergies between 
existing instruments and to strengthen coordi nation and consistency between them. It would 
provide a framework for risk mapping and for de vising national risk prevention strategies. 
This would be complemented by a common knowl edge base and targeted funding as well as 
guidelines for developing nationa l risk prevention strategies. 
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE OPTIONS  
This section provides an impact assessment that  is consistent with the current stage of 
development of a comprehensive Community policy on the prevention of di sasters. Firstly, it 
focuses on the possible impacts of EU action or in action. This is intended to inform the basic 
policy decision whether or not to develop an EU strategy on disaster prevention. Secondly, it 
analyses the impacts of the various options fo r Community action in the four areas identified 
in chapter 2. This aims at informing a fi rst round of policy discussion between the EU 
institutions on a wide range of options that could be further explored and assessed for 
potential inclusion into such a strategy. 
6.1. Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters 
The future situation with no further EU policies in this area may be one where: 
– citizens, the environment and economic a ssets may experience different prevention 
levels implying different levels of protect ion within the EU when comparing regions 
with comparable disaster risks; 
– the costs of developing prev entive strategies and action in Member States may be 
higher than expected in light of the pr obable insufficient level of, for example, 
experience sharing and knowledge sh aring and joint knowledge building; 
– the efficiency of prevention strategies may suffer from an insufficient level of 
comparability as regards background information — across regions that share risks or affect each others’ risk patterns; 
                                                
 
37 building on existing initiatives such as the Eu ropean Forest Fire Information System EFFIS 
EN 26   EN – the cost efficiency of dealing with disa sters will be far from optimised, and once 
disasters strike, the costs will need to be covered anyway, implying also a high potential pressure on the EC response mechanisms and the Solidarity Fund; 
– finally, the level of disaster prevention and/ or the reduction of the effects of disasters 
may be lower than expected. In such a cas e only a fraction of the potential benefits 
summarised in Annex 3, ta ble 6.1 would be achieved 
Various studies show that the damage and co sts caused by natural and man-made disasters 
could have been avoided by better prevention measures.  
According to the OECD
38, given that remediation, restorat ion, and reconstruction costs are 
likely to be considerable (and that damages can be irreversible), there is a strong case for ex 
ante “prevention”. The introduc tion of measures which reduce the frequency and severity of 
environment-related industrial accidents and natura l disasters will often be  less than the costs 
of restoration. The World Bank a nd the US Geological Survey have estimated that the world-
wide economic losses from natural disasters in  the 1990s could have been reduced by USD 
280 billion, if USD 40 billion had been invest ed in disaster preparedness, mitigation and 
prevention strategies (World Bank, 2004). 
According to the UK Environmental Agency the va lue of prevention is also significant in so 
far as “for every £1 further we can spend, we woul d be able to save the country £6 in repair 
costs”39. 
Similarly, recovery costs can be extremely hi gh since they not only include the expenses 
related to the re-establishment of conditions that  existed prior to the disaster, but also cover 
costs deriving from the disruption of economi c and social activity and loss of momentum 
caused by the disaster, part of which is anyway  difficult to quantify in monetary terms.  
6.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 
6.2.1.  Initiative on risk mapping 
Existing situation  
Today, almost all Member States do risk mapping to some extent for selected disaster types. 
In particular, all EU Member States have to  develop flood hazard and flood risk maps by 2013 
under the EU Flooding Directive. 
The EU Flooding Directive (2007/60/EC) opera tes with a definition of both flood hazard 
maps and risk maps as tools for planning and communication, using a stepwise approach. 
According to the Directive, flood hazard maps  should cover geographical areas which could 
be flooded. Flood risk maps should show the poten tial adverse consequenc es associated with 
flood scenarios. Member States are required to  develop their hazard maps and risk maps by 
December 2013. Flood hazard maps, risk maps, and flood management plans should all be 
made available to the public, in order to in crease public awareness, support the process of 
                                                 
38 Costs of inaction on environmental policy challe nges: summary report (ENV/EPOC(2007)16/final). 
39 Mark Tinnion, regional flood risk manager, Environment Agency, cited in ABI 2007. 
EN 27   EN prioritising, justifying and targe ting investments, and support sp atial planning and investment 
plans.  
In the private sector, the insurance and reinsurance companies generally use risk maps as a 
tool for assessing risks, identifying risks and risk  zones and for assessing potential losses. In 
general, the insurance maps use information from public sources. Some EU countries, e.g. 
Austria, have set up a private public partne rship on flood risk zoning and mapping with the 
participation of the insurance industry and public authorities. 
Impact on national prevention policies  
Systematic pooling of information through risk mapping would contribute significantly to a 
stronger empirically founded knowledge base. It  would generate vulnerability and risk 
assessments aimed at increasing public awaren ess, supporting the proc ess of prioritising, 
justifying and targeting the inve stments and developing sustaina ble policies and strategies.  
This option would require extensive studies for defining the appropriate methodologies. 
Whilst on the one hand, it would guarantee a homogeneous appro ach by the Member States 
and excellent quality of data and information, on the other hand, it requires investments at EU 
and national level in terms of human and financ ial resources. At national level, new efforts 
would have to be made for co llecting data and possibly for adapting national data collection 
methods.  
It is expected that vulnerability assessments  will pinpoint regions and areas that are most 
likely to be affected by potenti al disasters, thus providing the means for prioritising and 
taking appropriate action which is  less costly than recovery. 
Administrative costs at national level 
Risk mapping would have budgetary consequences for public authorities, as they will have to 
make preliminary risk assessments and prepare risk maps and risk management plans. The 
costs arising from such obliga tions would depend on the size and type of the area to be 
assessed.  
The costs of preliminary risk assessment a nd risk mapping would depend on the information 
already available. Risk maps would only have to be developed where there are potential or 
reasonably predictable significant risks. The co sts of producing risk maps would depend on 
the decisions made by the Member States on the scale, level of detail and presentation (paper, 
electronic, etc). 
On a national scale, the cost of producing fl ood risk maps available to the public on the 
Internet was EUR 55 million for England and Wale s. The cost of risk mapping of the Loire 
basin was EUR 3 million. For the Rhine region, mu ch information was already available, and 
as a result, the cost was EUR 0.27 million. The costs of producing flood risk maps under the 
EU Flood Directive has been estimated at  EUR 100 to 350 per km2 of river basin. 
Similar costs can be expected for risk maps of other types of risks, depending on the 
information already available.  
Economic impact 
EN 28   EN Insurance premiums could be affected by more precise information on risks and vulnerability 
at local levels. This would most likely mean in creased premiums in affected or risk areas. 
Access to public information on risks would enab le the insurance industry to improve their 
financial risk assessment and may lead to a wider coverage of disaster insurances and 
increased cost efficiency.  
Raised awareness could result in monetary bene fits as people aware of a potential risk are 
inclined to be more receptive to risk warnin gs and protect themselves and their property 
accordingly, e.g. by simple risk prevention measures. In this way, the public may become actively involved in the development and implementation of disaster risk prevention measures.  
Environmental impact  
Negative impacts of disasters on the environm ent would be reduced. By mapping areas at 
risk, Member States can prevent future activitie s that affect the environment or adapt those 
activities to the risks. 
Social impact  
Institutions and the public would be better informed about risks, leading to better resilience.  
6.2.2.  Disaster observatory 
Existing situation  
Today, all Member States collect data in the field of disaster prevention, depending on the 
disaster type.  
Some Member States have worked specifically in the development of scenarios. In some 
Member States (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), cro ss cutting national vuln erability assessments 
have been conducted with a view to mappi ng vulnerabilities of so ciety, assessing the 
resilience of society and the measures put in pla ce in the field of disast er prevention and civil 
protection
40. In Portugal, the project “Climate change  in Portugal. Scenarios, Impact, and 
Adaptation measures” has led to work on clim ate scenarios involving prevention and response 
issues. 
Impact on the development of national prevention policies  
The Disaster Observatory would g guarantee smooth and easy access to information for 
citizens and governments alike. It is a value in it self if Member States and relevant actors in 
the private sector gain access to the same information sources, because they will be able to pass on information to citizens on the risks in a specific area. 
                                                
 
40 For instance, the report “ Sweden  facing climate change — threats and opportunities” (Commission on 
climate and vulnerability, Sweden’s Government Official Report, SOU 2007:60) has assessed the 
impact at regional and local level of global clim ate change, including an assessment of costs and 
benefits to be imposed on Swedish society. 
EN 29   EN The establishment of a common knowledge base would stimulate  research and development 
at national level. Focused coordination of resear ch in the field of disaster prevention would 
promote greater resource efficiency. 
For countries with limited experience in deal ing with a specific di saster type (flooding, 
drought, extreme temperatures etc.), a co mmon knowledge base would facilitate the 
introduction and dissemination of new preven tive measures, methods etc., e.g. through the 
exchange of best practices. Common knowledge in the field of disaster prevention would also 
assist in accelerating prevention efforts and re ducing vulnerability accord ing to best practice 
standards throughout the EU. 
A potential negative impact is the misuse of in formation e.g. for criminal  purposes rather than 
for prevention purposes. Another challenge would be for Memb er States to agree on the 
appropriate type and amount of information to be provided to  citizens in order to avoid -
creating an unnecessary and unjusti fied perception of insecurity. 
Administrative costs at EU level  
At the EU level, setting up the observatory with in existing structures would require specific 
financial and human resources. The staff of the Observatory would be composed of 2-5 
members. A yearly budget of 0.5 to 1.0 million € for specific studies could be covered by the 
Civil Protection Financial Instrument. 
Administrative costs at national level  
While the EU intervention would not involve a demand for fundamentally new structures, 
there may be a need to enhance coordinati on and cooperation at Me mber State level.  
At Member State level, the need seems to be for a small cross-cutting entity that can draw on 
existing organisational structures, liaise wi th the Observatory, and forward data and 
knowledge to national actors. Depending on the ex isting structures, the organisational set-up 
and coordination mechanisms in each Member St ate would need a single staff member and a 
very limited yearly budget. It is also inevitable  that costs will arise for the identification and 
comparability of data. These costs will however rela te to the initial inve stments. In the longer 
term, efficiency gains can be expect ed, offsetting the initial costs.  
Economic impact  
The enhanced knowledge base would have an impact on consumer behaviour related to 
buildings/houses since precise ri sk information could affect house prices in areas with a 
medium to high disaster risk profile in terms of flooding or forest fires. The same conclusion 
would apply to land used for agricultural or industrial production. In surance premiums could 
be affected by more precise information on risks and vulnerability at local levels. 
The economic impact may also depend on the fi nancial conditions for making the information 
available for stakeholders: free vs paying information. 
Environmental impact  
The Disaster Observatory encourages a better c oordinated and more integrated approach to 
prevention, mitigating the negative impacts of disasters on the environment. The coordination 
EN 30   EN with other EU sectoral policies would not only en sure that risk-related measures do not affect 
the environment negatively, but also that measures taken have positive effects for the environment.  
Social impact  
The enhanced knowledge base would impact positively on restoring a strong prevention 
culture, where citizens take appr opriate preventive measures.  
6.2.3.  Launch projects under the Civil Protecti on Financial Instrument (CPFI) for the 
development of common methodologies for data acquisition and information 
generation on disasters in the EU 
This option would imply an increase in the shar e of CPFI funds utilis ed for prevention. Given 
the time necessary to set up and complete such ac tion, this option is likely to generate results 
slowly, which would limit its bene fits during the first years. The impact of  project results at 
national level will also depend on the Member St ates’ willingness to integrate such results 
into the national frameworks.  
In the long run, this should enhance comparabilit y of data for cross-border hazards evaluation 
and foster cooperation on disaster prevention. Fu rthermore, it will help to establish European 
networks of expertise. 
6.3. Improved linking of actors and sector al policies throughout the disaster 
management cycle  
6.3.1.  Development of best practices and guidel ines involving prevention aspects  
The production of such guidance would require human and financial resources at EU level 
and the participation of Member State and stak eholder experts. Howeve r this would represent 
limited costs. Depending on the interest of the Member States it might significantly improve 
the lessons learnt after disast er, and the links between preven tion, preparedness, and response 
actors.  
6.3.2.  Multisectoral steering group  
Existing situation 
Member States have various forms of cross-cutt ing committees at nationa l, regional, or local 
level. The two exploratory stud ies have however indicated a mo re widely recognised need for 
enhanced horizontal coordi nation and collaboration.  
Impact on the development of  national prevention policies   
Setting up a multisectoral steering group would e nhance the links between national services to 
catalyse national disaster prevention approaches  and create links between measures taken in 
different phases of the disast er management cycle (preven tion, preparedness, response and 
recovery). The steering group w ould contribute towards strengthe ning the links between civil 
protection, on one hand, and environmental manageme nt on the other. It might also promote 
cross-cutting coordination at national level to  ensure effective information flows. It can 
encourage a continuous momentum on disaster prevention policies.  
EN 31   EN The interaction between different departments would also have be neficial impacts in terms of 
improved understanding of the issues and opti ons for action regarding the prevention of 
disasters.  
Administrative costs at EU level  
At EU level, the setting-up of a steering group and a sma ll secretariat would imply the 
allocation of financial and human resources. The steering group would be composed of 1-2 
employees. A yearly budget of 0.25 to 0.5 million € for conferences and meetings could be covered by the Civil Protecti on Financial Instrument.  
Administrative costs at national level 
At Member State level, the setting-up of a steering group will be limited to participation in 
meetings and conferences and some national co mmunication to national actors. While the EU 
intervention would not involve  a demand for fundamentally ne w structures, th ere may be a 
need to enhance coordination and co operation at Member State level.  
Economic impact  
A multisectoral steering group would provide a common platform for determining the types 
of natural disasters and the areas  where a significant potential ri sk to human lives and health, 
the environment and economic activity can be expected. The use of an open method of coordination would provide member States with  sufficient flexibility to schedule and budget 
the measures recommended in this framewor k according to their specific priorities and 
available resources. This will increase gene ral acceptance of the potential economic costs 
involved.  
Environmental impact 
Through a more integrated approach to preven tion, the negative impacts of disasters on the 
environment may be significantly reduced. Member  States would be able to prevent future 
activities that affect the environment or  adapt those activi ties to the risks. 
Closer links among the Member States as we ll as within the Commission would not only 
ensure that risk-related measures do not aff ect the environment negatively, but also that 
measures taken have positive effects for the environment. 
Social impact  
A multisectoral steering group open to the various  stakeholders from the Member States 
would increase knowledge and awareness, and therefore ensure ow nership and social 
acceptance of the prevention measures propos ed and agreed in this framework.  
6.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters  
Specific options to improve the use of EU  funds for preventing disasters include:  
EN 32   EN 6.4.1.  Specific funding 
The creation of an additional instrument would on the one hand enable specific funding of 
prevention policies. On the other hand, as ther e is a wide variety of  potential prevention 
activities ranging from exchange s of good practices to infrastr ucture projects, this option 
would require decisions on prio ritising prevention of disa sters over other objectives.  
Existing situation 
Today, no clear overview is available on what is  being spent in the area of prevention, as 
delineation and interpretations of preventive action vary among EU funds and programmes. 
The impact of natural disasters on the Co mmunity budget was analysed in a European 
Parliament41 study for the period 2003-2005, though studi es are not available for the ongoing 
budgetary period.  
Problems regarding the use of EU funds have been described in paragraph 3.3.3.  
Existing EU funds are described in Annex 2. 
Impact on the development of national prevention policies  
The impact of such a fund could be to fill the gaps at Member State level, especially for 
countries that find it difficult to give priority to disaster prevention, in the light of the 
expected increase in the frequency and severity of  disasters, particularly  natural ones. Specific 
funding would thus enhance and accelerate the efforts of all Member States inducing 
European cohesion. To avoid over laps, specific provisions coor dinating the instrument with 
existing funding mechanisms would be needed. 
Administrative costs at EU level  
In order to develop more sp ecific guidelines for EU fund ing in the area of prevention, 
sufficient technical resources wi ll need to be set aside.  
Administrative costs at national level  
An increase in funding would have budgetary consequences for public authorities as they 
would have to set aside suffici ent resources for administrati on and implementation, compared 
to what they have in place al ready. As a first step, providing  better guidance on how to focus 
current Community funding on prevention woul d probably involve a smaller burden on 
Member States. However, in the medium to long run, the cost-benefit of increased focus on the area of prevention would pay off. 
Economic impact  
An increase in dedicated fundi ng may raise the overall funding burden for Member States or 
may require rebalancing the funding priori ties between sectors and activities.  
                                                
 
41 Impact of natural disasters on the Community budget, 2003-2005 study, European Parliament, 
Directorate General for internal policies, budgetary support unit, budgetary affairs. 
EN 33   EN Better guidance on funding of preventive action would provide a better common platform for 
prioritising the types of potential disasters th at should be addressed and supported with EU 
funding, hence a more effective use of resources.  
Environmental impact  
Negative consequences of disasters on the e nvironment would be reduced if more funding 
was provided. Member States coul d thus improve the way they prepare future activities that 
affect the environment or adapt those activities to the risks. 
Social impact  
Increasing the funding for prevention and better  targeting of the funds towards prevention 
would also result in increased focus on th e issue and more public awareness.  
6.4.2.  Guidance on use of funds 
The production of such guidance would require human and financial resources at EU level 
and the participation of Member State and stak eholder experts. Howeve r this would represent 
limited costs. Depending on the interest of the Member States it might significantly improve 
the use of EU funds for disaster prevention. It would require better  coordination among the 
various funds and programmes at  both EU and Member State le vel, including a clarification 
of their respective scopes, in order to ensu re better utilisation of budget resources and 
consistency with the priorities defi ned by the Member States and regions42. 
6.4.3.  Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments 
Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments would deliver improvement in 
the use of EU funds. However,  given the current stage of programming for the use of the 
structural and other funds, the impact of this option is likely to be delayed to the next 
financing cycle. Its implementation may requir e additional work for Member States with 
regard to disaster prevention planning, and for the Commission in so far as the planning of 
additional measures is concerned.  
6.5. Targeting specific risks and building on existing initiatives 
6.5.1.  Improving the targeting of disaster prevention in existing EU instruments 
The potential for improving sector al legislation should be addres sed as part of its review 
cycle. For example, by strengthening the risk analysis and risk prevention elements in the 
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive), it should be possible to focus 
more thoroughly on risk prevention.  
Furthermore, the risk prevention approach woul d be streamlined into Member States' policies 
and plans, improving the quality and consistency of policies. This would cause only limited 
impacts in terms of administrative burden or disruption of existing national administrative 
structures. 
                                                 
42 Summary of the Public Hearing “Natural disast ers: how should Europe respond? 20 March 2006, 
IPOL/B/AGRI/NT/2006_02.  
EN 34   EN Moreover, the review of the SEVESO II Directiv e is ongoing. It focuses primarily on aligning 
the requirements of the dir ective to the new chemicals legislation (GHS) and on the 
administrative burden linked to the enforcement of the directive. Where appropriate, placing 
the amendment of the directiv e into a broader prevention pr ocess (including man-made and 
natural disaster causes) could be considered, in  order to complement and give consistency to 
the prevention measures provided for under the directive. Impact assessment of possible 
changes would be part of  a separate exercise. 
6.5.2.  Complementing existing sectoral initiatives w ith other specific initiatives, such as an 
EU initiative on forest fires  
As various sectors possess part icular experience, expertise and requirements, a sectoral 
approach seems to be needed in order to addres s specific disasters. On the other hand, these 
sector-based initiatives cover a limited number of the multiple hazards to which EU member 
States are exposed.  
Existing situation  
A number of EU legal instruments with elemen ts of risk prevention already exist today, and 
new initiatives are expected. Any new sectoral initiative will have to take into consideration 
the approach followed under the EU Floods Directive43 and the SEVESO Directive 44.  
In particular, in so far as forest fires are conc erned, measures and specific regulations to help 
Member States to prevent, combat and mitigate the effects of forest fires have been 
implemented at Community level, in line  with Community competence in forestry 
(subsidiarity, shared responsibility). 
The EU Forestry Strategy45 (Council Resolution of 15 D ecember 1998) and the EU Forest 
Action Plan46 (adopted in June 2006) ha ve outlined the current policy framework, including 
the further development of the European Forest  Fire Information System EFFIS. The five-
year Action plan consists of a number of  key actions that the Commission proposes to 
implement jointly with Member States. In particular, the action plan indicates that 
- with support from the EAFRD and Life + instrument, Member States may support forest fire 
prevention measures; 
- with support from the EAFRD and the ERDF, Member States may enhance investments for 
natural hazard prevention and safety.  
Impact on the development of national prevention policies  
Specific initiatives on disasters are a solid basis for political prio ritisation and decision, 
therefore accelerating efforts bei ng made by the Member States.  
                                                 
43 Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. 
44 Council Directive 96/82/EC on th e control of major-accident hazards  involving dangerous substances. 
45 OJ C56, 26.2.1999. 
46 COM(2006)302 final 
EN 35   EN Assuming that the catalogue of prevention measur es will include awareness-raising aimed at 
specific target groups47, educational measures and the inclus ion of private sector actors and 
civil society in prevention initiatives, the comb ined, active participation of several actors 
would contribute to speeding up resilien ce-building at national level.  
Administrative costs at national level  
The additional administrative burden linked to a dedicated initiative on forest fires (such as a 
directive) and placed upon member States wo uld be low when compared to the potential 
benefits of preventing such fires.  
Economic impact  
A range of economic impacts is related to fore st fires. These include the loss of human and 
animal lives, direct fire suppression costs, short and long term effects on health, production 
loss in the farming and forestry sector and rela ted sectors, direct material losses. All these 
factors can slow down or discon tinue economic activity in the a ffected areas. In the worst 
cases, they can totally disrupt economic and human activity in such areas. Increasing prevention efforts would obviously he lp reduce fire suppression costs
48. 
By helping to conserve natural resources and economic activity, prevention efforts would also 
mitigate the impact of fires on local and national economies.  
The forestry sector and related industries repres ent an important economic sector in countries 
such as Portugal where they are re sponsible for 3.4% of GDP (1993 figures49). Thus, loss of 
forest of the magnitude which Portugal e xperienced in 2003 and 2005 has an important 
bearing on the economy. 
According to the Office National des Forêts (FR) , the cost of burned forests is 9 000 € per 
hectare. Such a figure is based solely upon e xpenses arising from, extinction, cleaning and 
replanting. For 500 000 hectares (average year in  the EU) this represents 4 500 million € of 
damage. 
Preventive action reducing the number of hectar es burnt by 10% would therefore represent a 
saving of 450 million €.  
Environmental impact  
The magnitude of forest areas burnt in the southern part of Europe between 2000 and 2007 
caused loss of biodiversity in NATURA 2000 s ites. More effective EU preventive action 
would have helped to minimise such loss. Sinc e forest fires also contribute to CO2 emissions 
(e.g. in Portugal a yearly average of 1.6 milli on tonnes of carbon was emitted due to forest 
                                                 
47 A recent study on forest fires conducted for the European Parliament (forest fires: causes and 
contributing factors in Europe. Study conducted for the European Parliament, February 2008) states that 
an EU policy should be adopted to “encourage forest owners to share the responsibility through 
collective organisation with proper guidance, so that both small and large owners contribute to the reduction of fire risk”. 
48 WILDFIRE 2007 meeting in Sevilla confirme d the increasing fire suppression costs 
49 Climate Change in Portugal — scenarios, impacts and adaptation measures (SIAM) 2001 
EN 36   EN fires between 2002 and 2006)50, a decrease in their occurrence will positively contribute to 
reducing such emissions and will ensure the main tenance of the carbon retention capacity of 
forests.  
Social impact  
A FAO51 study52 states that “The estimated social and economic damages caused by fires are 
enormous, although la rgely un-quantified”.  
Preventive measures that can reduce casualties and minimise harm and damage to individuals 
and communities can be expected to  have a positive impact on society. 
Ensuring the active participat ion of local communities, in dustry, businesses and NGOs in 
preventive action, in addition to the commitme nt of the public sector, for example, would 
boost the social impact of forest  fire prevention. The case of Portugal has demonstrated that 
involving different sectors of soci ety motivates citizens' groups a nd the private sector to show 
social responsibility in rela tion to forest fire prevention53. 
6.5.3.  Framework legislation on prevention 
Natural and manmade disasters do not alwa ys fall within one category which can be 
addressed through a single sector -specific approach. Futhermore , disasters may be caused by 
chain reactions, and different combined factor s may affect their occurrence and severity. 
Existing situation  
Today, only a few Member States pursue an inte grated approach to prevention (for instance 
United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmar k; France, Germany, and Sweden). 
Impact on the development of national prevention policies 
Such legislation would require setting up new systems in the Member States, or adjusting 
existing ones, to address the issues of disaster  prevention, which may have significant impacts 
in terms of reorganising nati onal administrations. On the ot her hand, it w ould have the 
potential for maximising the benefi cial impacts of disaster prev ention, improving in particular 
coordination and cooperation among Member States using the same set of approaches and risk 
assessments.  
Administrative costs at national level  
Since a framework legislation would encompass an integrated approach on risk mapping, the 
administrative costs impact assessment, in  paragraph 6.2.1, is also of relevance.  
The implementation of framework legislation w ould have budgetary consequences for public 
authorities as they would have to transpose the regulatory framework in the form of risk 
                                                 
50 Forest fires: causes and contributing factors in Europe. Study conducted for the European Parliament, 
February 2008 
51 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 
52 Fire Management Working Paper FM18E, FAO 2006 
53 Member States approaches towards Prevention Policy — a Critical Analysis. COWI, March 2008 
EN 37   EN assessments, risk maps and risk management pl ans into national legislation. It would have 
financial consequences on private stakeholders  at implementation level, possibly involving 
investment shifts or increases. In general, the costs ar ising from such obligations would 
depend on the size and type of the area to be  assessed. A transparent coordination mechanism 
at national level will also be needed. Such a mechanism may require additional resources, in particular staffing. 
The costs of transposing and implementing the framework legislation at  Member State level 
would depend on work already done and existing national legislation. So me Member States 
may already have similar procedures or elements  of such a procedure in  place, including some 
central coordinating body in charge of implemen ting a similar type of framework legislation.  
The costs of producing national legislation would depend on the decisions made by the 
Member States on the scale, level of detail of legislation, and on the policy choices of 
Member States within the overall legislative framework, which is not detailed at this stage. In addition, some administrative co sts would be required for mon itoring and enforcement tasks. 
Costs can be reduced if the fram ework legislation is flexible, l eaving EU Member States with 
room to focus on risks which are particularly  important and allowing each Member State to 
use existing data, methodologies and procedures for hazard analysis, hazard and risk mapping 
and risk management. 
Economic impact 
A framework legislation would provide a comm on platform for determining the types of 
natural disasters and the areas where a significan t potential risk to human health and lives, the 
environment and economic activity can be expected.  
Environmental impact  
Through a more integrated approach to preven tion, the negative impacts of disasters on the 
environment may be significantly reduced. Member  States would be able to prevent future 
activities that affect the environment or adapt such activities to the risks. 
Closer links with other EU legislation and overall prevention framew ork legislation would 
ensure not only that risk-related measures do not affect the environm ent negatively, but also 
that measures taken have positive effects for the environment.  
Social impact  
From a broader perspective, framework legisla tion setting out measures for prevention would 
contribute to reinforcing the level of protection of EU citizens.  
Furthermore, it would re duce the health risks related to na tural and man-made disasters, e.g. 
psychological distress, by decreasi ng their likelih ood and impact.  
Such legislation would also have a positive imp act on the functioning of the labour market, as 
companies and industries would become less a ffected or disturbed by major disasters. 
The public would become better informed about risks, and the outcome would be increased 
public awareness. This could resu lt in monetary benefits as people aware of a potential risk 
EN 38   EN are inclined to be more receptive to risk wa rnings and protect themselves and their property 
accordingly, e.g. by simple risk reduction measures. In this way, the public may become actively involved in the development and implementation of disaster risk prevention measures. 
7. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
7.1. Comparing the generic impacts of EU action and no EU action 
At this stage of the policy cycle, policy-makers are confronted with the initial question of 
whether or not to develop specific EU initiativ es to enhance disaster prevention in the EU. 
Table 7.1 in Annex 4 provides information on th e generic impacts of developing or not 
developing such a policy. 
The table demonstrates that the main impact s of the absence of EU action are potential 
divergences in the protection of citizens, the environment and property from disasters across 
the EU. EU action is expected to contribute to a better prot ection of such aspects. The 
financial and administrative burden at EU and nati onal levels is expected to be relatively low 
compared to the benefits of EU action. The speci fics and the magnitude of the impacts of EU 
action will depend on the area in which such action takes place, on th e specific options 
selected and on the administrative implementation mode. 
7.2. Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 
The table 7.2 in Annex 4 compares the impact of the options for building a consistent 
knowledge base on disasters.  
The urgent need for action regarding the prev ention of disasters and the importance of 
building a sound knowledge base re quire that action be taken sw iftly and without delay. The 
creation of an inventory of information on disa sters at EU level, building upon existing data 
collected by environmental data centres, is likely to deliver quicker, more comprehensive and more consistent results than the rather lengt hy process of financi ng individual projects. 
Nevertheless, on specific areas, studies and cooperation projects invol ving Member States 
could be carried out under various EU instruments. 
7.3. Link the various actors  and sectoral policies 
Table 7.3 in Annex 4 compares the impacts of  options for linking the various actors and 
sectoral policies.  
In the short term, a European network composed  of representatives of the various national 
departments could provide a flexible option th at could adjust to th e different needs and 
resources of Member States whilst ensuring EU-wide coordination and consistency. It would 
have potential for delivering benefits at relati vely low, though not ne gligible costs, would 
enhance understanding of disaster prevention is sues at all levels, a nd would provide a basis 
for promoting this policy area further. 
At the same time, the development of guidelin es and lessons learnt on prevention aspects 
could have immediate benefits at a relatively limited cost at EU and national level.  
EN 39   EN 7.4. Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 
Table 7.4 in Annex 4 compares the impacts of th e options for improving the use of EU funds 
for preventing disasters.  
Setting up a specific funding instrument for prev ention could lead to overlaps with existing 
instruments if it is not well designed. Enhanc ing the profile of prevention in existing 
instruments appears to balance advantages an d disadvantages in a mo re appropriate way. 
Given the urgency for action on  disaster prevention, work s hould begin immediately via the 
development of guidelines encouraging Member  States to make better use of Community 
funds for the prevention of disast ers. This would also provide a basis for subsequently explore 
the need to develop provisions on disaster prev ention in the context of the review cycles of 
the relevant funding instruments. 
7.5. Target specific risks building on existing initiatives 
Table 7.5 in Annex 4 compares the options for filling the gaps in existing initiatives.  
The EU has adopted a specific directive for fl ooding, which is one of the major categories of 
disasters. Further specific initiatives (such as a forest fires directive) could be considered for 
other types of disasters. However, the scope for such initiatives appears to be limited to forest 
and other wild fires. 
Integrating disaster prevention in the review pro cess of relevant legislation is likely to bring 
benefits by logically complementing the prevention-prepar edness-response-recovery cycle. 
Regarding industrial accidents,  the ongoing review of the SEVE SO Directive will assess the 
effectiveness of the Directive in  relation to prevention. It will be  important to assist Member 
States in the implementation of the existing directive.  
In the long term, the development of an integr ated legislation on the prevention of disasters 
may become workable. In the meantime, the inte gration of disaster prevention in the review 
process of relevant legislation is likely to re inforce the benefits expected from prevention 
action. 
7.6. Conclusions on the comparison 
7.6.1.  Should the EU develop an EU strategy on disaster prevention? 
This analysis suggests that such a strategy w ould be instrumental in reducing the impact of 
disasters within the EU, in terms of human  losses, destroyed pr operty and degraded 
environment, by reducing the disp arities regarding the protecti on of people, the economy and 
the environment from the effects of disasters, by  increasing the general level of awareness and 
protection among decision-makers and the public, and by promo ting best practice. Moreover, 
existing experience suggests that investments in disaster prevention are cost effective since they appear to be significantly lower that the cost of recover y. An EU initiative regarding the 
prevention of disasters should include meas ures addressing four areas for action: 
– building a consistent know ledge base on disasters; 
– linking the various actors and policies; 
EN 40   EN – improving the use of EU funds  for disaster prevention; 
– Better targeting of specific risks,  building on existing initiatives 
At this early stage of policy- making, the Commission considers that adopting the baseline or 
“do-nothing” scenario would not sufficiently reduce the impact of disasters and ensure a fair 
level of protection for all EU citizens. 
7.6.2.  What are the available options for inclusion in the strategy? 
A series of plausible options has been iden tified. They cover the following four areas for 
action and, depending on the level of ambition, they may be combined:  
In a short to medium-term perspective: – Accompanying measures such as the inclusi on of the disaster pr evention issue in the 
review cycle of relevant items of EU legi slation, for example the Seveso Directive. 
– Soft options covering the building of the knowledge base, the li nking of policies and 
the improvement of the use of EU funds through the provision of guidance. This process could be guided by a European netw ork composed of representatives of the 
various national departments concerned. It may require resources at EU and national 
levels. 
In a medium to long-term perspective:  – The amendment of existing funding instruments may improve the consistency and 
effectiveness of EU funding for the preventi on of disasters. The creation of a specific 
financial instrument for disaster prevention does not seem to be appropriate at this 
stage because of the significant efforts it would require at EU and national level. 
– Specific measures such as integrated instruments addressing risk mapping and 
disaster prevention in general, or vertical  instruments addressi ng specific disasters 
(e.g. forest fires). These might be more e ffective in reducing the negative impacts of 
disasters but would require  significant effort at EU and national levels.  
After the initial round of policy discussions, and before any combination of the 
abovementioned options can be inserted into th e final strategy, thus becoming the subject of 
concrete proposals for action, a detailed impact assessment must be undertaken . 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
At this early stage of policy development, wher e no final decision will be taken regarding the 
selection of specific options, m onitoring and evaluation arrangemen ts do not need to be made. 
However, a number of the options considered in  this impact assessment address the lack of a 
knowledge base, which would be necessary fo r any monitoring of disasters and their 
prevention. 
 
EN 41   EN  Annex I: Available statistics and referen ce graphs on the number of disasters in EU-27 and their costs for the 2000-2008 perio d (EMDAT)54 
Table 1: Number of natural, hydro meteorologi cal and technical disasters in EU 27 2000-2008 
 AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE UK Total 
Drought 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 
Earthquake 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 
Epidemic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 15 
Extreme Temperature 3 4 4 2 2 0 1 0 4 4 2 3 0 3 3 1 1 0 4 4 2 9 3 1 4 1 3 68 
Flood 4 6 11 0 5 0 0 1 18 5 14 8 1 12 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 29 6 1 8 0 13 151 
Industrial Accident 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 15 
Misc Accident 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 25 
Slides 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 
Transport Accident 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 5 12 3 0 14 0 0 1 6 0 2 3 3 1 0 15 0 3 79 
Volcano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
Wild Fires 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 22 
Wind Storm 5 3 2 2 5 3 1 0 13 14 4 3 4 2 2 1 0 0 4 7 1 6 1 2 4 2 7 98 
Total 15 15 23 7 13 5 3 2 53 35 40 19 7 42 6 5 2 6 11 20 16 54 13 5 43 5 29 494 
                                                 
54 See footnote 7  
 
EN 42   EN Table 02: Number of deaths caused by natural, hydro-meteorological, geological and technological disasters in EU 27, 2000-2008 (EM-DAT) 
 AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE UK Total 
Drought 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Earthquake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 
Epidemic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 19 
Extreme 
Temperature 350 2117 27 9 433 0 3 0 20886 9368 43 581 0 20104 76 20 170 0 1965 728 2737 228 1 289 15146 0 302 75583 
Flood 13 2 52 0 25 0 0 0 44 29 15 1 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 29 7 198 4 0 35 0 15 524 
Industrial 
Accident 0 23 0 0 0 1 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 115 
Misc Accident 12 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 93 26 0 0 0 19 0 25 0 0 45 65 70 10 11 0 18 0 14 430 
Slides 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 
Transport 
Accident 155 11 0 31 19 0 0 24 204 127 394 94 0 417 0 0 20 102 0 32 40 45 11 0 346 0 31 2103 
Volcano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Wild Fires 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 79 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 6 0 23 0 0 167 
Wind Storm 7 7 2 0 8 5 0 0 52 81 5 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 30 4 29 2 6 25 8 53 353 
Total 550 2160 91 40 485 6 25 24 21331 9631 536 692 3 20644 76 45 190 102 2021 917 2889 524 35 296 15595 8 426 79342 
 
 
EN 43   EN Table 03: Total costs in thousands USD caused by natural, hydr o-meteorological, geological and t echnological disasters in EU 27 , 2000-2008 (EM_DAT) 
 AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE F
IFR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT L
U M
TNL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE UK Total 
Drought 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100000 0 0 0 225573 0 0 0 0 1338136 500000 0 0 0 0 0 2163709 
Earth-quake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12000 0 0 0 1857352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10000 0 0 0 1879352 
Epidemic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Extreme 
Temperature 280000 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 4400000 1950000 3000 0 0 4400000 0 0 0 0 100000 0 0 0 150000 80000 880000 0 0 12243050 
Flood 3100000 0 458000 0 2480000 0 0 0 2822350 11820000 605659 138000 0 9601000 0 0 0 0 0 700000 0 1548790 9000 5000 513285 0 14462 150 48263234 
Industrial 
Accident 0 100000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9960407 0 0 10060407 
Misc 
Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256000 
Slides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Transport 
Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Volcano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3100 
Wild Fires 0 0 20054 0 0 0 0 0 10000 0 1750000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3380000 0 0 0 2712000 0 0 7872054 
Wind Storm 425000 455000 0 10000 170000 1400000 130000 0 251050 8560000 340000 10000 100000 175000 325000 30000 0 0 850000 100150 0 0  383300 392000 72000 2800000 3800050 20778550 
Total 3805000 555000 478104 10000 2650000 1400000 130000 0 7483400 22342000 2698659 248000 100000 16036452 325000 255573 0 0 1206000 8001 50 4718136 2048790 542300 487000 14137692 2800000 18262200 103519456 
 
EN 44   EN 
 
 
EN 45   EN 
 
 
EN 46   EN Annex 2: Risk prevention funds 
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)   
Risk Prevention (natural and technological risks) is high lighted as one of the prio rities of the ERDF for the 
2007-2013 period. The Regulation on Eur opean Regional Development Fund55 states that the prevention 
of risks is a priority, notably within the convergen ce (art 4.5), regional competitiveness and employment 
(art 5.2e) and European territorial co operation objectives (art. 6.1b, 6.2b, and 6.3 a).   
Between 2007 and 2013, around €5.8 billion will be avai lable from Cohesion Policy programmes for 
management and prevention of risks in relation to various types of di sasters, including forest fires. 
An increase in funding for actions and initiatives related to prevention is already foreseen in a number of 
areas. For instance, the Community  Strategic Guidelines for the Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 stress the 
need to take risk preventive measures through im proved management of natural resources, targeted 
research and more innovative public management policies56. 
Some initial assessment has been ma de in a study on a Strategic Evalua tion of the Structural and Cohesion 
Funds for 2007-2013, addressing  natural risk hazards57. The study found that only 10 out of 15 countries 
had identified management of flood ri sks and 3 out of 15 countries had mentioned forest fires as main 
priorities for funding.  
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)  
Besides other rural development measures that may i ndirectly contribute to the objective of disaster 
prevention, the rural development regulation provides s upport for natural disaster prevention, related to 
agricultural and forestry production potential. The EAFRD can suppor t measures to restore agricultural 
production potential damaged by natu ral disasters and measures to introduce appropriate prevention 
schemes. For the programming period 2007-2013, € 732 m illion of the EAFRD bud get (€ 1.48 billion for 
the total public expenditure) have been planned for this measure.  
In addition, 1.55 € billion of the EAFRD budget (2.47 € billion for tota l public expenditure) have been 
earmarked for the measure “Restoring forestry potenti al and introducing preventio n actions”. As the last 
rural development programmes have been approved in 2008, it is too early to as sess the implementation of 
these measures.  
In the context of the Health Ch eck of the Common Agricultural Poli cy, the Commission has proposed to 
increase the amount of funding transfe rred from the first pillar (market and income policy) to the second 
pillar (rural development). The f unding obtained this way could be us ed by Member States to reinforce 
rural development programmes, notably in the field of climate change. One of the operations that Member 
States could select to address as a climate change priority could be forest fire prevention. This would 
already contribute to the objective of enhancing th e profile of prevention in the review of existing 
instruments.  
The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) 
                                                 
55 EC Regulation N° 1080/2006 of the European Parliament 
56 COM (2005) 0299, 5.7.2005 
57 Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Ri sk Prevention under Structural and Cohe sion Funds for the period of 2007-2013, No 
2005.CE.16.0.AT.016. Synthesis Report,  Directorate General Regiona l Policy, November 7, 2006  
 
EN 47   EN The EUSF provides financial support for emergency measur es in the event of a ma jor natural disaster. In 
principle, payments from the Fund are limited to fina ncing emergency operations undertaken by the public 
authorities to alleviate non-insurabl e damage (such as rescue services , putting infrastructures back in 
operation, provisional accommodation, cleaning up, etc). Private damage and income losses, including 
agricultural damage, may not be compensated.  
Member States must specify the prevention measur es carried out in their implementation reports.  
In April 2005, the Commission presented a proposal for a revised Solidarity Fund Regulation to the 
Parliament and to the Council. One of the key elements  is an enlarged scope, enabling the Community to 
react to disasters other than thos e having natural origin. The proposal was very favourabl y received by the 
European Parliament but so far ther e has been no progress in the Council. 
Examples of planned spending on risk prevention and management 
The data is based on information published by the Di rectorate General for Regional Policy (source: Info-
Regio) and gives examples of planned spending on ri sk prevention and management in the framework of 
the Operational Programmes on Environment and Sustainable Development under the Convergence 
objective, co-funded by ERDF and Cohe sion Fund for the period 2007-2013:  
- Greece  has identified prevention and tack ling of environmental risks as a priority. The objective is to 
support and improve the efficiency of public administra tion in dealing with envir onmental risks by setting 
up a civil protection network focusing on prevention, immediate reaction and prompt intervention. To 
meet this objective, anti-flood, anti-fire and anti-eart hquake actions are defined. Special attention will be 
given to major technological accidents.  
For the action “prevention and tack ling of environmental risks (inc luding waste)”, the budgets are 
estimated as follows: 
EU contribution: €32 million National Public contribution: €8 million Total Public contribution: €40 million - The Czech Republic  focused on reducing industrial pollution, reducing emissions and the transfer of 
substances and reducing the level of e nvironmental contamination by chemicals. 
For the action “limitation of industria l pollution and environmental risk s”, the budgets are estimated as 
follows: 
EU contribution: €60 605 709 National Public contribution: €10 695 125 Total public contribution: €71 300 834 
 
EN 48   EN Annex 3  
Table 6.1: Main direct benefi ts of preventing disasters 
Disaster type Number of deaths and 
total costs in EU-27 in 
2000-2007 (EM-DAT) Potential benefits 
Major floods  
524 deaths 
damage cost: 48 billion 
USD Reduced number of deaths and injuries. Less impact on infrastructure 
(bridges, dams, transport infrastructure), and buildings. Floods are the risk 
type with the largest economic costs in EU-27.  
Wind storms 353 deaths 
damage cost: 21 billion 
USD Reduced number of deaths and injuries . Less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings and reduced costs of reconstr uction of this disaster type with 
significant costs in EU-27. Reduced loss of habitats and biodiversity in 
forests. 
Extreme temperature events (both extreme 
warm and cold 
periods)  75583 deaths 
damage cost: 12 billion 
USD Significant reduction of number of deaths. Extreme temperature is the 
predominant risk factor causing deaths in EU-27. 
Droughts No deaths 
damage cost: 2 billion 
USD Reduced impact on irrigated and rain -fed agricultural productivity and 
reduced water shortage. Less secondary  economic effects due to reduced 
food production during drought. 
Forest and wild fires 167 deaths 
damage cost: 8 billion 
USD Reduced impact on forestry and agri cultural sector productivity. Reduced 
number of deaths and injuries, less im pact on infrastructure and buildings. 
Reduced loss of habitats and biodiversity. 
Earthquake 31 deaths 
damage cost: 1.9 billion 
USD Reduced number of deaths and injuries , less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings and reduced costs of reconstruction. 
Tsunami No disasters registered in 
EM-DAT Although this is a rare event, tsunami s may cause a high number of deaths 
and major damage. Preventive actions  may therefore have significant 
benefits in terms of reduced number of  deaths and injuries, less impact on 
infrastructure and buildings. 
Volcanic 0 deaths 
damage cost: 3 million 
USD Reduced number of deaths and injuries , less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings. 
Industrial accidents 115 deaths 
Damage cost: 10 billion 
USD Reduced number of deaths and inju ries to industrial workers and 
population in neighbourhoods of industria l installations and less impact on 
infrastructure and buildings close to industrial installations. 
 
 
EN 49   EN Annex 4: Comparison of the impact of the options 
Table 7.1: Expected generic impact s of EU action and no-EU action  
Impact category No EU action EU action 
 
Direct impacts of disasters (see table 6.1) Depends on national action — 
potential divergence Decrease in the impact across 
the EU 
Development of national 
disaster prevention policies Unchanged trend — potential 
divergence 
Strengthening in some Member 
States particularly after having experienced major disasters Strong encouragement to the 
Member States to address disaster prevention 
Cost of disaster management Depends on national action — potential divergence 
Where prevention is sub-
optimal, management costs are expected to remain high Decreased overall cost of 
disaster management and 
increased eco-efficiency  
Protection of citizens and 
economic assets Depends on national action — 
potential divergence Improved protection of citizens 
and economic assets across the EU 
Economic resilience  Depends on national action — potential divergence Increase of economic resilience 
of sectors concerned  
Nature and biodiversity Depends on national action — potential divergence Increased protection of nature 
and biodiversity 
Administrative burden No impact Administrative burden at 
national and EU level 
Effectiveness of use of EU 
funds No impact 
Depends on national policy  Improved use of EU funds 
 
 
EN 50   EN Table 7.2: Comparison of options for building a consistent knowledge base on disasters 
 Legislation on risk 
mapping Disaster observatory Financing projects 
Direct impacts of disasters (see 
table 6.1) ++ 
Slow strong effects + 
Rapid moderate effects + 
Slow moderate effects 
Awareness of citizens and other 
actors and emergence of a 
disaster prevention culture ++ + + 
Efficiency of the use of EU 
funds ++ 
Strong indirect impact ++ 
Strong indirect impact + 
Limited indirect impact 
Administrative costs at national 
level -- 
Most expensive option 
as it requires national 
legislation. It implies administrative burdens 
and compliance costs - 
Costs would be limited 
to improving data 
collection, provision of data to the observatory. 
Administrative burden 
costs can be expected.  0 
Any such costs would 
be compensated by EU 
funding 
 
Administrative costs at EU 
level - 
Proposing legislation 
and monitoring the 
implementation of 
adopted legislation 
costs  -- 
A disaster observatory 
would be created at EU 
level and would require 
more resources than 
monitoring the implementation of a 
directive 0 
As projects would be 
included in existing 
instruments, no 
additional 
administrative costs are expected 
Research on disaster prevention + 
Research will be 
needed to implement 
the option ++ 
The observatory would 
provide direct input to 
research priorities + 
Projects would 
contribute to improving 
research 
Transboundary cooperation  0 
The exercise would 
mainly be of a national 
character + 
The disaster 
observatory would 
foster exchange of 
information between the Member States ++ 
Projects would always 
involve a transboundary 
cooperation dimension 
The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), ( -) means a negative impact (e.g. increased c ost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact. 
 
EN 51   EN Table 7.3: Comparison of the options for linki ng the various actors and sectoral policies 
 Multisectoral steering group Best practices and guidelines  
Direct impacts of disasters (see 
table 6.1) + 
High potential but relatively complex 
set-up could limit the impacts + 
High potential but the impact of 
guidance is by nature limited 
Awareness of citizens and other actors and emergence of a 
disaster prevention culture + 
Limited direct impact on awareness + 
Limited direct impact on awareness 
Efficiency of the use of EU 
funds + + 
Administrative costs at national 
level - - 
Administrative costs at EU 
level -- 
moderate to high cost expected to 
ensure success - 
Cost to set up the guidelines and for 
specific analysis of Member State 
programmes and reporting to Parliament and Council 
Research on disaster prevention + 
Links made in group with research 
sector ++ 
Guidelines could cover all instruments 
including research programmes 
Transboundary cooperation  + 
The group in itself would create links 
between the Member State leading to opportunities for cooperation + 
Transboundary cooperation would be 
encouraged 
The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), ( -) means a negative impact (e.g. increased c ost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact 
 
EN 52   EN Table 7.4: Comparison of the options for improving the use of EU funds fo r preventing disasters 
 Specific funding Guidance on use of EU 
funds Enhancing disaster 
prevention provisions 
in EU funding instruments 
Direct impact of disasters (see 
table 6.1) + 
Limited to scope for 
significant resources under a specific 
instrument + 
High potential but the 
impact of guidance is by nature limited ++ 
Strong signals covering 
a range of significant financial instruments 
Awareness of citizens and other actors and emergence of a disaster prevention culture 0 0 0 
Efficiency of the use of EU 
funds + + ++ 
Administrative costs at national 
level 0 
Costs compensated by 
EU financing 0 
Costs compensated by 
EU financing 0 
Costs compensated by 
EU financing 
Administrative costs at EU 
level -- 
The creation of a new 
instrument and 
monitoring its 
implementation represent the biggest 
additional costs - 
Cost to set up the 
guidelines and for 
specific analysis of 
Member State programmes and 
reporting to Parliament 
and Council - 
Initial costs to set up 
the requirements. In a 
second stage little or no 
additional costs given the full integration in 
the financial 
instruments 
Research on disaster prevention + 
Research projects could 
be supported by a 
specific instrument ++ 
Guidelines could cover 
all instruments 
including research programmes + 
Research programmes 
would not be concerned 
by the option 
Transboundary cooperation  + 
Transboundary 
cooperation would be one criterion for 
projects financed + 
Transboundary 
cooperation would be encouraged ++ 
Transboundary 
cooperation would be one criterion for 
projects financed 
The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), ( -) means a negative impact (e.g. increased c ost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact 
 
EN 53   EN Table 7.5: Comparison of the options for filling the gaps in existing initiatives 
 Specific sectoral 
initiative such as forest fires initiative Complement legal 
framework Review of Seveso 
directive Framework legislation 
on disaster prevention 
Direct impact of disasters (see table 5.1) ++ 
Ample evidence of scope 
and potential benefits of 
EU action + 
Limited to disasters 
addressed + 
Scope for improvement 
limited as the Directive 
already addresses prevention aspects ++ 
Awareness of citizens 
and other actors and 
emergence of a disaster 
prevention culture ++ 
Forest fires are a strong 
public concern given 
their frequency + 
Limited direct impact on 
awareness + 
Limited to public living 
close to installations 
covered by the directive and to the staff employed 
in those installations + 
Limited direct impact on 
awareness 
Efficiency of the use of EU funds ++ 
Member States are 
expected to make more use of funding 
possibilities if a specific 
instrument exists 0 0 
Limited impact if any as 
legal instrument already exists + 
Administrative costs at 
national level -- 
A new directive would 
imply new efforts by the Member States, in 
particular in the 
vulnerable Member States. It will imply 
administrative burdens 
and compliance costs.  - (administrative burdens 
and compliance costs )  - 
Only incremental costs 
expected as implementation 
structures already exist 
in the Member States -- (administrative 
burdens and compliance costs)  
Administrative costs at EU level - - - - 
Research on disaster 
prevention + 
New impetus would be 
given for the specific 
area of forest fire 
prevention + 
Limited to disasters 
addressed 0 
Small impact if any ++ 
Legislation expected to 
give strong signals 
Transboundary cooperation  + 
Current levels of 
cooperation would be 
enhanced 0 
This option would 
mainly trigger national 
action 0 
Scope for improvement 
limited as the Directive 
already addresses 
prevention aspects 0 
This option would 
mainly trigger national 
action 
The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. redu ced cost or increased effi ciency), (-) means a negative impact (e.g. increased c ost or reduced cooperation), (0) 
means no or negligible impact.