Table of Contents

1 Introduction. 3

1.1 Scope of the Overview.. 5

1.2 Information sources for the Overview.. 6

1.3 Main Natural and Man-made Disaster Risks Addressed. 6

2 Natural Disaster Risks. 8

2.1 Floods. 8

2.2 Severe weather 13

2.3 Forest and wildfires. 21

2.4 Earthquakes. 24

2.5 Pandemics/Epidemics. 27

2.6 Livestock epidemics/epizootics. 30

3 Man-made Non-malicious Disaster Risks. 33

3.1 Industrial accidents. 33

3.2 Nuclear/radiological accidents. 36

3.3 Major transport accidents. 39

3.4 Loss of critical infrastructure. 41

4 Man-made Malicious disaster risks. 44

4.1 Cyber-attacks. 45

4.2 Terrorist attacks. 47

5 Multi-risk Disasters. 50

5.1 Natural risks. 51

5.2 Natech risks. 51

5.3 Technological and man-made risks. 51

6 Emerging Disaster Risks. 52

6.1 Impact of climate change and ecosystem degradation. 52

6.1.1 Natural hazards. 52

6.1.2 Implications for infrastructure. 55

6.1.3 Migration in the context of climate change. 56

6.2 Space Environmental Hazards. 57

6.2.1 Space debris. 57

6.2.2 Space Weather phenomena. 58

6.2.3 Near Earth Objects. 59

6.3 Anti-microbial resistance. 60

7 Conclusions. 61

8 Annexes. 66

9 Bibliography. 67

Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks in the EU

1 Introduction

In 2009, a framework for European Union (EU) cooperation on disaster prevention across all types of natural and man-made hazards was agreed upon by the EU Member States in Council conclusions[1]. A fundamental building block for this prevention framework is risk assessment, which together with risk analysis constitutes the basis for a successful disaster risk management (DRM) strategy. The Council set out several steps to build a risk assessment policy. Firstly, in 2010 the European Commission prepared guidelines on risk assessment[2] based on research and good practice examples that could support Member States in the preparation of national risk assessments (NRAs). Secondly, Member States agreed to prepare or update their own national risk assessments and to share with the Commission and other Member States the results of these assessments[3].

Subsequently in 2011[4], the Council asked the Commission to develop an overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the EU may face in the future, based on national risk assessments. The overview would focus primarily on natural and man-made disaster risks which are 'shared', i.e. those with likely cross-border impacts, or those on a larger scale where impacts would be experienced by more than one Member State. It would also take into account, when relevant and possible, the future impacts of climate change and the need for climate change adaptation.

The overview would help determine areas for cooperation between Member States on disaster prevention and preparedness; it could feed into planning for civil protection preparedness and response; and provide lessons for other policy areas such as climate change adaptation, research and regional policies. Examples of its relevance to other policy initiatives are the linkages with ongoing macro-regional programmes through which several European countries are cooperating in the field of DRM, such as the Baltic[5] and Danube[6] strategies, or the marine spatial planning/sea basin strategies.

Cooperation in the EU on risk assessment is to be enhanced and developed following adoption of the new Civil Protection Mechanism[7]. Member States are required to complete risk assessments at national or appropriate sub-national level and make available to the Commission a summary of the relevant elements by 22 December 2015 and every three years thereafter (Art.5). The legislation also confirms the importance of the risk overview and emphasizes its links to other policies. This document is a first risk overview, based, at this stage and for this version, on the Council conclusions provisions as well as the new Civil Protection Mechanism legislation.

Furthermore, the Commission/High Representative joint proposal for the implementation of the Solidarity Clause[8] includes a provision for the regular production by the Commission and the High Representative of a joint integrated threat assessment report at Union level as of 2015, building on the monitoring, interpretation and sharing of information provided by Member States.[9] The proposal is currently being discussed in Council.

This first version of an overview of natural and man-made disaster risks in the EU is based, so far, on contributions by 17 Member States: Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Germany (DE), Greece (EL), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Romania (RO), Slovenia (SI), Sweden (SE), United Kingdom (UK) - and Norway (NO) (see annex 1). Of these 18 contributions, 11 are complete or well-advanced NRAs or summaries thereof[10]. Seven Member States are yet to assess their identified risks and produce finalised versions of their NRAs[11] (see annex 3). Based on current contributions, Commission services consider that sufficient information is available to start identifying the most important disaster risks that a large number of Member States are addressing, focusing in particular on risks with a cross-border dimension. In addition, information on some natural hazards, collected at a European level for research projects, for other sectoral policies, including climate change adaptation, and for the forecasting tools developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), can complement the national risk assessments.

This document should be seen as a first step towards a full overview and the beginning of a medium term cooperation process with Member States. This overview has been created based on contributions of a limited number of Member States, and remains a living document in which future contributions by Member States - including both first and updated versions of national risks assessments – will feed into future versions of this document.

1.1 Scope of the Overview According to Council conclusions, the EU overview of risks should "identify […] risks or types of risks that are shared by Member States or regions in different Member States"[12]. To do so, it makes "use of the relevant expertise of the Member States" and "report[s] on information that Member States have provided with regard to risks”[13]. The overview will contribute to a shared understanding of where disaster risks lie in Europe, what their impact and likelihood are and how countries can work together to identify, assess and manage risks. In fact, the production of a cross-sectoral overview of disaster risks in the EU is enshrined in the civil protection legislation adopted in 2013, which calls upon the Commission to "establish and regularly update a cross-sectoral overview and map of natural and man-made disaster risks the Union may face, by taking a coherent approach across different policy areas that may address or affect disaster prevention and taking due account of the likely impacts of climate change".[14]

The overview focuses on a limited number of major disaster risks faced by EU Member States, resulting from an analysis of the first available national risk assessments and progress reports provided by Member States. Probability/likelihood of occurrence, magnitude of impact, the cross-border dimension of risks, and emerging risks are analysed based on available information.

In this overview, the main comparison between Member States' risk assessments is based on an analysis of the main natural and man-made hazards identified and a first analysis of their respective risk assessments (focusing on consequences/impacts and probability/likelihood of risk scenarios). 'Consequence' or 'impact' are understood as negative effects of the disaster or risk expressed in terms of human impacts, economic/infrastructure impacts and environmental impacts. The terms 'probability' or 'likelihood' are understood as the probability or likelihood of the risk occurring or taking place in the future. As set out in the guidelines on risk assessment and mapping prepared by the Commission, national scenario-building and risk identification would need to consider at least all significant natural and man-made hazards that "would occur on average once or more every 100 years (i.e. annual probability of 1% or more) and for which the consequences represent significant potential impacts, i.e. number of affected people greater than 50, economic and environmental costs above €100 million, and political/social impact considered significant or very serious".[15]

The timeframe for most of the risk assessments submitted is set at five to ten years ahead[16]. This time period allows for a more reliable assessment of the probability of natural and man-made hazards occurring, and corresponds approximately to timescales for the funding of potential actions addressing risks. The choice of a defined shorter timeframe may also help reduce comparability issues for risks which are important in the shorter term as compared to risks which may materialise only in the longer term.

Finally, emerging risks, such as space weather events, climate change and antimicrobial resistance for which the impacts are still difficult to assess, will be addressed in this overview. Future versions of the overview could increase in scope to address a wider range of risks and emerging risks. Further work on an EU overview of risks could further provide lessons for other policies and identify potential for future cooperation in disaster risk management at European, regional and national levels.

1.2 Information sources for the Overview

As mentioned above, the main information sources are the national risk assessments which Member States have shared with the Commission as part of Civil Protection policy. This has been complemented with projects, systems, methodologies and datasets managed by the Commission (JRC)[17] and collected through the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination system (GDACS) for earthquakes and tsunamis, the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) and the European Drought Observatory (EDO), as well as information collected for EU funded research projects on natural hazards and climate change.

Additional information comes from other EU policies including Agriculture and Rural Development, Climate, Development, Energy, Enterprise, Environment, Health and Consumers, Home Affairs, Internal Market, Research and Innovation, Integrated Maritime Policy and Transport.

For purposes of comparison, the World Economic Forum's Global Risk Report[18], which provides the positions and views of the Forum's network of leading experts on global risks, has been used. Relevant material produced by other institutions such as Interpol, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and United Nations (UN) agencies have been consulted to complete the background information on each of the natural and man-made hazards addressed.

Terms and concepts in this document are in line with the Commission's guidelines on risk assessment.[19]

1.3 Main Natural and Man-made Disaster Risks Addressed

The overview is based on the main risks addressed in the national risk assessments and progress reports provided by Member States. An analysis of the 18 national contributions currently at the European Commission's disposal identifies 25 hazards, both natural and man-made (malicious and non-malicious). The depth of assessment (listing, scenarios, and risk matrix analysis) of each hazard risk varies across the risk assessments and progress reports submitted. To avoid comparability complications in working with the limited material available, this overview identifies the frequency of denomination of each risk. This first-step analysis will draw a picture of the geographical distribution of the main risks across Europe based on Member States' contributions[20] and points to areas of potential for further work and cooperation amongst Member States.

In fact, a number of these hazards are also assessed in Global Risks Landscapes 2014 produced in the World Economic Forum's Global Risk Report[21]. These converging assessments would confirm the relevance of the risks addressed in this overview.

The frequency of denomination of the hazards identified is represented below:

Hazard || Frequency of denomination

Natural hazards ||

Floods || 17

Severe weather || 15

Pandemics/epidemics || 14

Livestock epidemics || 12

Wild/Forest fires || 11

Earthquakes || 9

Landslides || 7

Droughts || 6

Space weather || 4

Volcanic eruptions || 3

Harmful organisms[22] || 3

Tsunamis || 1

Man-made hazards ||

Industrial accidents || 15

Nuclear/radiological accidents || 13

Transport accidents || 10

Cyber attacks || 9

Terrorist attacks || 8

Loss of critical infrastructure || 7

Public disorder || 5

Marine/coastal pollution || 3

Water/food contamination || 3

CBRN attacks || 3

Refugees/unmanaged migration || 2

Environmental pollution Crisis outside the EU || 1 1

Table 1: Frequency of denomination of main risks in national risk assessments (DG ECHO, 2014)

Of all the hazards identified in the NRA, a list of the 12 most addressed hazards can be drawn. The main hazards listed below will be addressed in this overview:

Category || Hazard

Natural hazards || Floods

Severe weather

Wild/Forest fires

Earthquakes

Pandemics/epidemics

Livestock epidemics

Man-made hazards || Industrial accidents

Nuclear/radiological accidents

Transport accidents

Loss of critical infrastructure

Cyber attacks

Terrorist attacks

Table 2: Main risks in the European Union addressed in the overview (DG ECHO, 2014)

This section compares the way the countries contributing to the overview have analysed the 12 most commonly occurring hazards above. For each hazard, the criteria for analysis used, the scenarios identified and the evaluation of each relevant national risk assessment were examined.

The national classifications and terminologies of the types of hazards addressed may differ. It has, in some cases, been necessary to group 'similar' hazards within one hazard category: floods cover coastal, inland and flash floods; severe weather includes storms, heat waves, snow/ice, and rain; pandemics and epidemics are addressed together and refer to the main current pandemic risk in Europe, influenza; industrial and chemical accidents and the release of chemical substances are grouped together, as are nuclear and radiological accidents and the release of radioactive substances; transport accidents include air, land, maritime and hazardous material transport accidents; the variants of cyber security threats are regrouped under cyber-attacks, as is also the case for terrorist attacks.

When possible, observations are drawn from the risk matrices used by Member States to plot the different likelihood/probability and impact/consequence scores (see annex 2). Only nine of the 18 contributions received present assessment results in the form of a risk matrix and scenarios used for the risk evaluation (see annexes 3 & 4). The variety and varying severity of these risk scenarios complicate at this stage the comparability of results from Member States contributions. Moreover, although the matrices that have been sent have generally measured probability and impact on a 5x5 scale, these categories differ and could lead to different interpretations of severity of risks and, ultimately, different policy conclusions. Some of the matrices are numbered 1 to 5 or use letters A to E – 1 and A being low probability/impact and 5 and E being high probability/impact. Other matrices use various terms to express the ranges: probability is measured from highly unlikely to highly likely or from very low to very high; impact is measured from limited/insignificant to catastrophic, very low to very high, minimal to very significant, or from very low to very severe. The available assessment criteria and scores are gathered in overview tables in annex to this document (see annex 4).

2 Natural Disaster Risks 2.1 Floods

Floods are defined as "the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water".[23] These occur frequently in all parts of the EU in the form of river, flash and urban floods, as well as coastal flooding. Flooding is considered a complex process involving socio-economic and physical factors. Often, its impact is localised and limited in time; however, floods can also affect vast areas, cross borders, and maintain high water levels for weeks. Flooding can result in environmental conditions that are breeding grounds for diseases. While flood risks in some areas of Europe can be considered not to be significant – areas of low population density, low economic or ecological value – many areas are prone to one or more flood types. Increased soil sealing and ecosystem degradation can be further factors aggravating the flood risk. The map below, produced by the JRC, provides an overview of river flood hazard in Europe. It shows areas that could potentially be inundated by a 100-year flood assuming no flood protection up to that event:

Map 1: European flood hazard map for the 100-year return period (Alfieri et al., 2013[24])

Flooding has significant consequences on people, businesses, infrastructure and services, but also to the environment and cultural heritage. A report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) studying the floods in Europe for 1998-2009 identifies 213 recorded events, over 1,100 casualties and overall economic losses at about €60 billion[25]. Over the past years, major floods have occurred in Europe such as the ones in Southern and Eastern Germany and neighbouring countries in 2013 (estimated costs of €12 billion)[26], the Elbe basin in 2002 (estimated costs of €20 billion), in Italy, France and the Swiss Alps in 2000 (economic costs of €12 billion) and in the United Kingdom in 2007 (accumulated losses of €4 billion).[27] In fact, the number of floods and heavy precipitation in Northern and North-eastern Europe has increased in recent years, in line with current projections of increased extreme events resulting from climate change as further discussed in section 4.[28]

There is a long history of policy and operational action in Member States to address flooding. This has been complemented by EU legislation and other policy measures. In 2007, the EU adopted a floods directive[29] on the assessment and management of flood risks. Its main provisions include the requirement to assess if all river basin districts (or other unit of management including coastal areas) are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures (flood management plans) to reduce this flood risk.

Article 4 of the Floods Directive requires Member States to undertake a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for each River Basin District, Unit of Management, or the portion of an international River Basin District or Unit of Management lying within their territory. The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment requires an assessment of past and potential future floods and associated adverse consequences to identify Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk, which will be based on available or readily derivable information including the requirements specified in the Floods Directive (Article 4).

The figure below summarises the time periods covered by the reported historic flood events. The oldest flood event dated back to 100 AD from Spain. Most of the oldest events relate to fluvial and sea water floods which are presumably the most notable historically because of the extent of the damage that they may cause to human health. The highest proportion of recent flood events are for pluvial and groundwater floods (around 60% of events were recorded from 2000 onwards).

Figure 1: Time periods of reported historic flood events (DG Environment) (figure based on data AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK. The numbers in brackets after the source of flood refers to the number of events reported from the number of MS)

The preliminary results show that the most common source of reported historical flood events is by far fluvial (67% of events) followed by pluvial (19%) and sea water (17%). The least common is for artificial water bearing infrastructure and groundwater (both 1%). The most common mechanism is natural exceedance (54% of events). In terms of potential future floods the most common source of flooding is again fluvial (76% of reported events) and the least from groundwater and artificial water bearing infrastructure (both 2%). Natural exceedance was the most common mechanism (45%).

Economic consequences were most frequently reported for historic floods (for 42% of events at the aggregated level), this was followed by human health (28%), environment (14%) and cultural heritage (6%).[30] These patterns may be the result of the fact that, historically, the impacts of floods have been reported in terms of effects on the economy and human health rather than on the environment and cultural heritage: information on the latter two categories may simply not be available for many events. Furthermore, vulnerability of the population should be taken into account: for instance, socio-economic deprived populations, with worse housing conditions, might be expected to be more vulnerable.

The legislation reinforces the opportunities for the public to access this information and the active involvement of interested parties in the planning process. The EU has also supported the development of a flood early warning system for the whole of the EU - European Flood Awareness System (EFAS)[31] that provides overview information for riverine floods and flash floods to the European Commission's Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and complements flood forecasting activities carried out in the Member States. EFAS is part of the COPERNICUS Emergency Management Service[32]. Flood prevention, preparedness and response actions are a major priority for EU civil protection policy, particularly in the context of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.[33]

Flood risk is also being addressed in research projects financed under the European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)[34] such as project FLOODsite (Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies)[35], as well as the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)[36] such as the projects CORFU (Collaborative research on flood resilience in urban areas)[37] and IMPRINTS (Improving preparedness and risk management for flash floods and debris flow events)[38]. More recently, the STARFLOOD (Strengthening and redesigning European flood risk practices towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements)[39] will explore new ways of partnerships in risk management. Other projects focusing on flood risk are funded by ECHO under its Civil Protection Financial Instrument through annual call for proposals for Prevention and Preparedness in Civil Protection, such as projects HAREN (Hazard Assessment based on Rainfall European Nowcasts) in 2011, FLOOD CBA (Knowledge Platform for Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Flood Prevention Measures) in 2012, and ACHELOUS (Action of Contrast to Hydraulic Emergency in Local Urban Site) in 2013[40].

Analysis of national risk assessments

Flood risk is identified by 16 Member States (all contributing Member States but Cyprus) and Norway. In the NRAs submitted by Denmark and Norway, flood hazards are addressed as one of various severe weather phenomena to underline their occurrence as a cascade effect of other risks such as precipitation and storms. Bulgaria is in the process of assessing this risk.

A number of submitted NRAs underline the particularly high risk associated with floods. Indeed, floods are categorised as the highest risk hazard in Poland and in Hungary, one of four highest risk hazards in the United Kingdom and one of five in Ireland. This hazard is one of two most affecting Italy and the Czech Republic. Slovenia ranks floods as one of two highest risk hazards; Estonia ranks it as 'high' risk, while floods are ranked fourth in the Lithuania's priority ranking of potential hazards. In the case of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, for which a distinction in the assessment is made between inland and coastal floods, worst credible case scenarios provided assess a higher risk for coastal over inland flooding.

Land use and management practices can influence the intensity of fluvial and pluvial floods, based on the different capacity of retention of water in soil and vegetation. For example, Denmark identifies the density of buildings and the amount of surfaced reinforced with asphalt or other surfacing material rendering seepage difficult as a condition in assessing the risk of floods.

Denmark and Norway address flood hazards under the category of severe weather. Denmark focuses on storm surges, characterised by a sudden rise in sea water level following heavy coastal storms, high tides and precipitation. Norway addresses floods as a direct consequence of heavy precipitation and winds. The scenario used by Sweden considers flooding as an event associated with the failure of a river dam, also considered a loss of critical infrastructure. All these cases thus underline the direct cascade effect between flooding and other related hazards.

Flood hazards can also constitute cross-border risks affecting more than one country. For instance, Hungary addresses the cross-border characteristic of floods by underlining that, as a transit country for many rivers located in the Carpathian Basin, 95% of flood waters in Hungary originate abroad.[41]

Six Member States provide a matrix assessing the risk of a flood scenario: Estonia, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the different forms of floods assessed (inland, coastal, combination of both) and the absence/variety of scenarios used in NRAs, an assessment of risk matrices suggests consensus over the high risk level of this hazard. Impact of both coastal and inland flooding is assessed as moderate/serious or more across all six national assessments. The level of probability is also assessed as moderate/serious or above across most assessments, with the exception of the Netherlands whose use of a worst-credible flood scenario incurs a comparatively lower likelihood of occurrence.

Moreover, NRAs submitted by Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Netherlands, United Kingdom point to the likely impact of climate change on extreme weather events and flood risks across the EU. According to the UK's National Risk Register, "the rising temperatures and sea levels associated with climate change are likely to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and hence the flood risks across the UK".[42] Norway's NRA states that the country has so far been spared from the most extreme floods, as low air temperatures limit low evaporation and precipitation and the country has large number of lakes and forests; nevertheless, increasing temperatures and precipitation resulting from climate change may increase the risk of extreme floods.[43] The impact of climate change on floods is further explored in section 4.

Map 2: Participating states in the Union Mechanism assessing floods as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

2.2 Severe weather

A variety of meteorological phenomena can fall under the 'severe' or 'extreme weather' category, i.e. where they become disruptive and necessitate the intervention of emergency services and civil protection and/or lead to other natural disasters, such as flooding or drought. Investing in the development of Green Infrastructure[44] can help to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability. The severe weather phenomena commonly cited by European countries include storms/hurricanes, heat waves, cold spells, droughts, snow and/or ice and heavy rainfall.

Storms are natural phenomena consisting of strong winds and precipitation. Storms in Europe generally originate from extra-tropical cyclones resulting from warm subtropical air coming into contact with polar air over the Atlantic Ocean. Large differences in these pressure systems result in the formation of storms over western and central Europe; less frequently, these storms may progress southward and affect southern and south-eastern Europe. It is estimated that during 1998-2009 storms caused the death of over 700 people and were the most costly of all natural hazards in Europe in terms of losses. The environmental impacts of storms are also relevant: over 130 storm events have been identified as causing "noticeable damage" to forests in Europe in the past 60 years and storms are responsible for over 50% of all primary abiotic and biotic damage by volume from catastrophic events to forest in Europe.[45] Storms may also have important impacts on infrastructure, posing a challenge to transmission networks and renewable generators in the energy sector, as well as traffic disruption, traffic accidents and damage to installations of transport infrastructure.[46] While no trend of storms occurring has been identified, storm-related losses have increased in recent years due to increased exposure.[47] However, current projections of increased extreme events resulting from climate change indicate that the risk of storms in Europe will increase, as is further discussed in section 4.[48]

Some sector-specific policies both at European level (Green Paper on Forest Protection and Information in the EU[49]; proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management[50]) and national level have seen the light in recent years. Furthermore, further research on storm management has been carried out through FP7 funding such as projects MOTIVE on Models for Adaptive Forest Management[51] and MICORE working on the morphological impacts and coastal risks induced by extreme storm events.[52] Further research has started in 2013 on assessing European coastal threats in relation to extreme events in order to improve risk management and resilience: PEARL (Preparing for Extreme and Rare events in coastal regions)[53] and RISC-KIT (Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – toolKIT)[54]. The RISES-AM Project (Responses to coastal climate change: Innovative strategies for high end scenarios Adaptation and Mitigation)[55] considers future sea level rise in its wave modelling approach.

A period of extreme heat, or heat wave, is defined as a lengthy period of extraordinarily hot and/or humid weather patterns for a set region. No set thresholds exist as defining heat wave levels is region-specific. A tentative definition proposed by the World Health organisation (WHO) identifies a heat wave as "a period when maximum apparent temperature and minimum temperature are over the 90th percentile of the monthly distribution for at least two days".[56] In recent years, heat waves have been the extreme weather hazard that has had the largest impact in terms of loss of life. The most vulnerable populations are the elderly, the infirm and socio-economically deprived groups in dense urban environments. Urban heat islands may exacerbate the effects of heat waves. In 2003, for example, heat waves killed some 70,000 people all across Europe. Heat waves may also impact infrastructure, causing overheating and damage to installations of transport networks, changing the conditions for vehicles' road grip and affect the efficiency and output of energy infrastructure due to reduced availability of cooling water.[57] Northern countries are naturally less exposed to this threat than Southern nations. Climate change may however lead to an increase in the occurrence and intensity of heat waves in the future (see section 4).[58]

Droughts refer to precipitation shortfalls stretching over a prolonged period of time which may occur across all climates (different to aridity). These slow-onset phenomena have widespread impacts of extensive geographical scope. Droughts are usually classified in meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socio-economic droughts, depending on their duration and principal impacts. Over the past two decades, the number of drought events in Europe has increased, potentially due to the effects of climate change causing rising temperatures, heat waves and dry winters. Regions of Europe with a moderate or high drought hazard are located in the Mediterranean, especially the Iberian Peninsula, Southern France, parts of Italy, Greece and Cyprus. However, to date no systematic drought risk assessments have been implemented at European level. So far, potential assessment possibilities and methodologies have been discussed at European level in the Water Scarcity and Drought Expert Group under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). With the reform of the CIS this group has, however, disappeared and it is still to be decided which new working group should cover the topic. Drought hazards and risk assessments will be part of the River Basin Management Plans under the WFD.[59] In the meantime, the European Drought Observatory (EDO) has been producing data allowing for the JRC to provide initial estimates of drought hazards and projected changes across Europe (see map 3). These analyses will be refined and an analysis of the current and future hazard and risk for droughts and heat waves are included in the JRC work plan from 2014 to 2016.

Projects related to droughts are also being funded under the European Commission's FP7 programme such as the DEWFORA (Improved drought early warning and forecasting to strengthen preparedness and adaptation to droughts in Africa)[60] and DROUGHT-R&SPI (Fostering European drought research and science – Policy interfacing)[61] projects.

The issues related to droughts and water scarcity and the potential role of the EDO have been highlighted in the Communication on “Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union”[62] as well as in the European Parliament report “Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance”[63] and the Communication on “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources”[64].

One example of a sector specific policy at EU level which addresses such severe weather events, is the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)[65] which provides support for farmers to take preventive action against natural disasters, adverse climate events and catastrophic events as well as to support investment to restore the agricultural production potential damaged by these events. In order to get support, Member States and regions have to introduce this measure in their Rural Development Programmes.

Finally, the Commission Communication on an EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change refers to the increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts in Southern and Central Europe (see section 4).[66]

Assessments of drought-proneness (see projected change from 2011 baseline to scenario 2041-70) at NUTS-2 level[67] have been undertaken also as part of the RESPONSES project (European responses to climate change: deep emissions reductions and mainstreaming of mitigation and adaptation)[68]. Projected changes in potential hotspots from different scenarios are indicated in the map that follows.

Map 3(a): drought proneness together with vulnerability hotspots

at NUTS-2 administrative level for EU 27, baseline 2011

Map 3(b): drought proneness together with vulnerability hotspots at NUTS-2 administrative level for EU27, scenario 2041-70

Map 3(c): projected change in drought proneness from 2011 baseline to scenario 2041-70

on NUTS-2 administrative level for EU27

While heat waves have received much media attention, the risks of extreme low temperatures, or cold spells, are also high in Europe. No European definition exists of dangerously low temperatures, but these can be understood as periods of nine consecutive days during which temperatures reach -5°c or lower including six of those days during which the lowest temperatures reach -10°c or lower. In recent years, cold spells have had dramatic impacts affecting vulnerable populations and groups (elderly, children, homeless, and people with ischemic diseases, chronic respiratory diseases or asthma) with increased risk of mortality, as well as causing disruptions in services and infrastructure (in transport infrastructure: signalling problems, damage to embankments, etc.[69]).[70] Section 4 explores the impact of climate change on extreme temperatures.

Heavy snow and/or ice can have both an economic and social impact on a country and/or region. Snow affecting large areas, that is, a number of counties or regions, or an entire part of the country, usually significantly reduces standard transport services. The cessation of transport services (restrictions/disruptions of train operations; road traffic safety issues such as increased risk of collision; risk of weather-related delays in all modes of services[71]) and associated disruption to healthcare services (increased demand and reduced ability to provide services) has both an economic and social impact. Other costs associated with ice or snow includes de-icing and salting of roads, repairs to roads and transmission cables. At the local level, there can be social disruption caused by transport delays, people being unable to go to work, strain on local services, power cuts, burst pipes, fatalities and injuries. In addtion, prolonged snow or ice has an impact on vulnerable groups such as the elderly or the homeless.

Heavy rainfall is a weather phenomenon directly linked with the flood hazard addressed above. Heavy precipitation over a short period of time can be the cause of particularly dangerous flash flooding. Heavy rain may also have other cascade effects such as landslides, loss/damage of critical infrastructure and transport accidents. In fact, the number of floods and heavy precipitation in Northern and North-eastern Europe has increased in recent years, in line with current projections of increased extreme events resulting from climate change as further discussed in section 4.[72]

Analysis of national risk assessments

The risk of severe weather hazards was identified by: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom. While Greece and Italy do not focus on severe weather as such, their assessment of floods is closely related. This analysis will work with a definition of severe weather encompassing storms/hurricanes, heat waves, cold waves, droughts, snow and/or ice and heavy rainfall.

Storm hazards are extensively covered across most of the NRAs submitted, confirming the relevance of this risk for European countries. All but one (Romania) contributions have included storms in their list of identified risks: Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Poland; Hungary; Ireland; Lithuania; the Netherlands; Germany; Norway; Sweden; Slovenia; and the United Kingdom. Storms often encompass a number of specific weather phenomena such as gale-strong winds, thunderstorms, and are linked to hurricane hazards. Results of national risk matrix assessments retrieved from risk matrices produced by Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and the United Kingdom identify storms as particularly high risk hazards. Storms are identified by Norway as the type of severe weather causing the most damage. In its scenario assessment, Lithuania points to the potential economic impacts of storms on electicity infrastructure, civil aviation and its environmental impacts. Denmark's analysis of historial evidence points to the cascade effect of storms on coastal flooding as a result of storm surges.

The risk of extreme hot temperatures and heat waves is considered by Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Hungary and Sweden. With the exception of Hungary whose risk assessment focuses on the high level of impact of heat waves, all other Member States point to the high likelihood of occurrence of these events. In their analysis of a heat wave scenario, both the Netherlands and Sweden underline the high likelihood of occurrence of this hazard.

Closely linked with the occurrence of heat waves, drought is also addressed across half of assessments submitted: Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In fact, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands combine droughts and heat waves under one hazard risk scenario. In its scenario analyses and risk assessments, Lithuania, Norway and Ireland underline the important environmental and socio-economic impacts of this hazard, particularly in the agricultural and energy sectors.

Across all national risk assessments analysed, the risk of extreme low temperatures is addressed in six European countries (United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Estonia and Poland). Little information is provided on this specific risk, as this remains a hazard with relatively limited impact (Estonia, Ireland, United Kingdom) or low likelihood of occurence (Hungary). Ireland assesses low temperatures as a high likelihood event.

All the listed countries assess this risk together with the risk of snow/ice. In fact, the United Kingdom and Ireland address low temperatures and snow as one severe weather phenomenon. Lithuania and the Netherlands also consider snow and ice as a main hazard risk. No Southern European country has addressed this hazard, which would represent a low risk due to the very low likelihood of occurrence. The risk of heavy snowfall/ice is deemed to have both a relatively high impact and probability in the countries which identified snow and/or ice as a national risk. Most countries define heavy snowfall in terms of disruption to transportation services. The day-to-day impact of snow and ice on the individual and the state – through disruption to heating, transport, travel, etc. – can be significant. The residual impact is comparatively low. The UK estimates that periods of heavy snow can cost the economy £90 million (approximately €105 million) while Hungary estimates that annual damages from snow and ice repairs alone are between 15 to 20 billion HUF (approximately €59 million). The melting of snow and/or ice may increase the risks of other hazards such as forest fires due to longer dry periods (Hungary), flooding (Lithuania and The Netherlands), rockslides and landslides (Norway). Lithuania lists the sudden melting of snow or ice plugs as two of the five main causes of 'disaster floods' in the country.

Rainfall is only rarely addressed in the Member States' contributions. Only three Member States refer to this natural phenomenon: Denmark, Hungary, and Germany. Denmark's analysis of historical evidence confirms that heavy precipitation and cloudbursts have impacted the country most markedly in recent years, particularly in vulnerable urban areas. In fact, some cities have adopted comprehensive adaptation strategies or specific action plans (e.g. on risk prevention, flood or water management), or are in the process of doing so. Both Denmark and Hungary underline that likelihood of occurrence is high.

Overall, the cross-border dimension of severe weather events, affecting more than one country or region, is clear. All of the natural weather phenomena addressed cover large territories across national borders. In addition, as Lithuania indicates, the cascade effects of severe weather and ensuing cross-border risks must be taken into account.

Finally, more severe and frequent weather conditions in the future can be expected as a result of climate change. Denmark and Norway's assessments of storms, as well as Ireland and Sweden's assessments of droughts and heat waves confirm these worsening trends, which are further explored in section 4.

Map 4: Participating states assessing severe weather as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

2.3 Forest and wildfires

Forest and wildfires are a high probability risk and a recurrent phenomenon in the EU. Approximately 70,000 forest fires occur every year in the European Union, burning on average half a million hectares of forest and natural lands. Forest fires are an essential component of ecosystem dynamics; nevertheless, due to their growing intensity, recurrence and degree of impact, forest fires are considered a main natural hazard in Europe. The main direct effect of forest fires is the destruction of the natural landscape and the consequent loss of ecosystem constituents. Over 95% of fires are the consequence of malicious or unintended human action. Yearly economic losses due to forest fires are estimated at about €2 billion. In addition to ecological and economic losses, fires result in the loss of human lives every year. During the summer of 2007, forest fires in Greece alone claimed 80 lives among civilians and fire fighters.[73]

Forest fire hazards are not evenly distributed in Europe. The meteorological conditions under which forest fires take place determine their impact. Drought, high temperatures and strong winds facilitate fire ignition and spread. Since these conditions are found more frequently in Southern and South East European countries, these are the ones suffering most from the damages caused by fires, i.e. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, Portugal and Spain. Approximately, 85% of the total annual burnt area in Europe is located in five EU Mediterranean countries: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece. The forest fire season which affects Southern Europe every summer requires a large amount of both human and material resources such as fire-fighting planes and helicopters. In fact, the number of forest fires in Southern and Central Europe has increased in recent years, confirming projections of increased extreme events resulting from climate change as further discussed in section 4.[74]

While the EU Treaty makes no reference to specific provisions for an EU forest policy, the EU has a long history of contributing through its policies to implementing sustainable forest management and to Member States’ decisions on forests. The Commission has recently adopted an EU Forest Strategy[75] that gives a new framework in response to the increasing demands put on forests and to significant societal and political changes that have affected forests over the last 15 years. Protection of forests from different threats, including fire is one of the priorities of this strategy, which also identifies prevention of fires as a key area for Member States to advance. Furthermore, the Forest Focus Regulation (EC) no. 2152/2003 provides for a Community scheme for a harmonised, long-term monitoring of the condition of forests, including forest fires. Created in 1998 by the JRC and the Commission Directorate General for Environment, the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) is a comprehensive information source for fires across the EU[76]. Its role is to support the services in charge of the protection of forests against fires in the EU and neighbouring countries, while also providing the European Commission and Parliament with information on forest and wildfires in Europe.

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) provides support for forest fire prevention and restoration. In the framework of shared management, the Member States and regions can decide on how to use the EAFRD and on the priority they give to forest fire prevention and restoration actions. During the programming period 2007-2013 the five Mediterranean countries allocated more than €1.2 billion for measures targeting prevention and restoration of natural disasters and fires.

The Regulation on support for rural development[77] continues support for the period 2014-2020 for activities preventing and restoring damage to forests from fires and other natural disasters and catastrophic events including pests, diseases as well as climate change related events. Eligibility conditions and amounts available for such actions will be laid down in the new Rural Development Programmes of each Member State or region. Eligible operations shall be consistent with the forest protection plans established by the Member States. Support may also be provided for investments improving forest resilience and interventions concerning climate services[78].

Restoration measures following disastrous forest fires are also eligible for funding through the EU Solidarity Fund[79].

It is possible to assess the incidence of forest fires on the basis of fire statistics from past years; this approach was used to derive the map presented in the figure below. In this figure, areas with high fire incidence are those in which the either the number of fires or the burnt area statistics in the past years were considered high or very high. A more complex methodology taking into account other fire related variables such as fuels, topography, etc. will lead to a comprehensive fire risk map at the European level.

Map 5: Forest fire incidence in Europe (JRC, 2012)

Analysis of national risk assessments

An analysis of the Member States' contributions identifies 11 Member States looking at the risk of forest and wildfires: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Forest and wild fires are a highly prominent hazard in Southern Europe. Fires are recurrent hazards during the summer season across Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Cyprus. However, of the countries listed, only Greece has so far contributed to this overview. Further contributions may in the future address this hazard and contribute to this analysis.

Northern countries such as Estonia, Germany, Netherlands, Hungary and Poland have also identified wildfires and forest fires as a threat as one large forest fire regardless of the season may have bigger impacts than many small ones.

The main impacts of forest and wildfires are predominantly environmental but may also be human and socio-economic. According to the UK, wildfires can cause damage and disruption of transport systems and critical infrastructure (airports, power lines, etc.), businesses and private property; in fact, "the impacts of wildfires will be most significant if they occur close to urban areas"[80]. Notwithstanding the varying impacts highlighted across the relevant NRAs, all countries having submitted assessable data converge on the relatively high level of probability of occurrence of this hazard.

The cross-border dimension of this hazard is underlined by Hungary. Indeed, fires are hazards which progress and affect areas irrespective of national boundaries. Greece also points to the regional dimension of this risk, stressing that all Southern European countries are particularly vulnerable to fires in the summer period.

Finally, the impact of climate change of the forest fire hazard is addressed by Hungary. The importance of forest and wildfires has increased in recent years, partly due to extreme weather conditions, low amounts of precipitation, high mean temperatures and low/no snow cover in recent winter seasons. This is further explored in section 4.

Map 6: Participating states assessing forest and wildfires as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

2.4 Earthquakes

Earthquakes are generally the result of a sudden subterranean release of energy due to an abrupt shift along a fault fracture. In fact, more than 90% of earthquakes are caused at plate boundaries. The main fault lines in Europe are where the Eurasian plate meets the African plate and runs through the Mediterranean Sea. Greece, Italy, Cyprus Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia as well as Romania and Bulgaria around the Black Sea are particularly at risk.

The JRC has been involved in earthquake risk science through various Units and actions, as well as through participation in FP7 projects such as Project Syner-G (Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructure’s Safety Gain)[81] and other scientific projects, including the GEM Project (Global Earthquake Model)[82]. The JRC is also running an operational earthquake impact assessment system in the framework of the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (GDACS)[83]. GDACS has collected earthquake data since 2003 in Europe and globally. The JRC tool RAPID-N, used for the risk assessment of NaTech risks at local and regional level, has also currently been implemented for earthquakes.[84]

The consequences of earthquake hazards are difficult to assess in a top-down approach. Earthquakes can trigger secondary effects (like landslides, floods caused by dam breaks, liquefaction, and tsunamis resulting from submarine quakes in sea basins such as the Atlantic west and the Mediterranean) and local amplification (local soil conditions that amplify the seismic motion and cause more destruction), for which local knowledge is necessary.

Furthermore, to assess the potential risk for infrastructure and population, local knowledge is required on vulnerability and exposure, including the location and structural characteristics of buildings, the applicable zonation and building codes, and the level of compliance with the codes. Vulnerability of the population should also be taken into account: for instance, socio-economic deprived populations, with worse housing conditions, might be expected to be more vulnerable.

Data is generally not available at national or European level, obliging top-down risk assessments to make assumptions and therefore making them less precise. However, they are useful tools to understand which regions are most at risk and which need to be encouraged to make more detailed risk assessments. Based on hazard data and overlaid with major cities (population 50000+), the JRC was able identify the top 20 European cities at risk from earthquakes (see annex 6). Furthermore, the European Commission is funding under its 7th Framework Programme projects on earthquakes such as the project SHARE (Seismic Hazard Assessment in Europe)[85], which provides the first complete seismic hazard model across Europe based on the most comprehensive databases of active faults, subduction zones, earthquakes, and strong-ground motion records. The reassessed combined model of earthquake occurrence, frequency and magnitude of future activity includes higher values of maximum magnitudes than previously estimated. The new reference European Seismic Hazard Map displays the ground shaking (i.e. Peak Ground Acceleration) to be reached or exceeded with a 10% probability in 50 years, corresponding to an average recurrence of such ground motions every 475 years, as prescribed by the national building codes in Europe for standard buildings; the values of expected ground shaking are in many areas higher than previously estimated, and reach over 0.5g ('g' standing for gravitational acceleration) in the areas of highest seismic activity. For the first time, SHARE computed for the whole European area also the higher ground shaking expected only every 1,000-5,000 years, of importance for the risk assessment and the protection of critical infrastructures such as dams or bridges considering the appropriate range of resonance periods. The new European seismic hazard model is the EU's contribution to the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) programme initiated by the OECD.

Other projects like Syner-G[86] explore new ways of assessing the systemic seismic vulnerabilities and related risks of building lifeline or built infrastructures, such as projects REAKT (Strategies and tools for Real Time Earthquake Risk Reduction)[87] that works on the improvement of forecasting, early warning and real-time risk reduction, and NERA (Network of European Research Infrastructures for Earthquake Risk Assessment and Mitigation)[88].

Map 7: Earthquake hazard in Europe (FP7 Share project)

Analysis of national risk assessments

The following Member States have identified seismic hazards in their contributions to this overview: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece (annex 7), Hungary, Italy (annex 8), Romania, and Slovenia.

All South-Eastern European countries underline the particularly high risk of this natural hazard. The human and socio-economic impacts of this hazard are of biggest concern. With its situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, Greece – along with neighbouring countries along the Mediterranean coast – is in a particularly high-risk area for earthquakes. Historical records show a number of major earth or seaquakes occurring there. A hazard map produced by Greece divides the country into three areas with different hazard levels (see annex 7). Italy is a country with high seismicity, characterised by regions where earthquake risk is of high likelihood and low impact (Vesuvius and Etna regions) as well as regions of low likelihood and high impact (Calabria Apennines, Eastern Sicily). Mortality rate due to earthquake hazards in Italy is 30,000 times more important than for any other natural hazard. Similarly, while overall seismic activity and related seismic risk in Hungary is medium, some regions such as Budapest-Kecskemét – one of the most active and highly populated – have a high seismic risk. Slovenia also identifies earthquakes as one of top two high risks.

By their very nature, earthquakes are unpredictable hazards that occur irrespective of national borders. The cross-border dimension of the earthquake risk is correlated to the exposure of areas along the fault lines in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea regions.

Across all the Member States looking at earthquake risks, special attention is given to the need to reduce the growing vulnerability of communities to this hazard. Indeed, urban areas are developing in seismic areas, thus increasing the potential human and socio-economic impacts. All contributions address the importance of reducing the vulnerability of buildings, in line with the Eurocode 8[89] recommendations.

Map 8: Participating states assessing earthquakes as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available) 2.5 Pandemics/Epidemics

A pandemic or epidemic can have direct impacts on life, health and well-being, and severe indirect consequences in the form of socio-economic losses and strain on public health services and other areas of governance. HIV/AIDS is to date the most studied pandemic in history. NRAs addressing pandemic threats have focused on pandemic influenza, which has been of most relevance in recent years. While predictions over the timing and nature of future pandemic outbreaks are difficult, it is agreed that the most likely future pandemic will be due to a novel influenza-A virus. The immunity of the human population to new influenza viruses with pandemic potential is limited or absent. Influenza pandemics would primarily have impacts on human health, as well as incurring both direct and indirect economic costs.[90] Furthermore, people with chronic diseases can be more vulnerable to epidemic and pandemic hazards.

Three flu pandemics occurred worldwide in the 20th century. The Spanish flu killed over 20 million people between 1918 and 1919; the Asian flu killed over one million people between 1957 and 1958; the third flu pandemic occurred in Hong Kong in 1968-69 killing 800,000 people. Pandemics recur every 30-40 years following a variation in the virus' antigenetic structure, leading to the emergence of new Type A flu virus subtypes. The type A (H1N1) pandemic in 2009 was the first of the 21st century, which resulted in casualties in several countries and required responses at global, EU and national level.

Another example is the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS was first reported in Asia in February 2003. The illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was contained. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a total of 8,098 people worldwide became sick with SARS during the 2003 outbreak. Of these, 774 died. During the SARS event, tourist and transportation industries have been heavily impacted by the restriction of movements on a global level. The estimated income loss ranges from US$12.3-28.4 billion for East and Southeast Asia as a whole. [91]

Preparedness and response planning to mitigate or prevent the impacts of pandemics is carried out by Member States of the EU through pandemic preparedness plans, a number of which have been updated since the influenza pandemic of 2009. Strong action on health threats is already being taken at EU-level. The European Commission, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)[92] and the WHO Regional Office for Europe have since 2005 been providing assistance to the Member States.

The Commission through its Directorate General for Health & Consumers coordinates EU action in the field of preparedness and response planning for serious cross-border health threats[93]. It aims at strengthening capacities to respond rapidly to any kind of emergency affecting or likely to affect public health. This includes advising national authorities and ensuring that they take on board the EU dimension, considering that emergency planning at national level may also have an impact beyond borders. An EU-level strategy is under development to coordinate rapid risk assessments and scientific advice that can then feed into risk management decisions at EU-level. This strategy will also ensure the inter-operability of national plans through coordination mechanisms, analysis and communication tools.

EU research programmes[94] are tackling research preparedness for infectious disease outbreaks via on-going FP7 funded projects on emerging infectious diseases[95] where relevant clauses are included in the grant agreement, providing the possibility and obligation to change research priorities in case of an outbreak in order to ensure a rapid research response. Horizon 2020[96] also includes preparedness for new and emerging infections, including zoonosis as a priority: the first Horizon 2020 calls published in December 2013 include a call on the rapid identification of pathogens to improve the control of infectious epidemics and foodborne outbreaks. Finally, the initiative on Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) launched in February 2013 together with the US, Canada, China, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Sweden, aims to start an effective research response within 48 hours of a significant outbreak of a new or re-emerging epidemic. For this purpose the GloPID-R teams up funding bodies investing in research related to new or re-emerging infectious diseases with the objectives to strengthen the global research preparedness capacities by addressing the scientific, administrative and financial challenges which currently hamper international collaboration and a rapid response.

A recent Council and Parliament Decision addresses the important cross-border dimension of threats to health including threats of biological origin including communicable diseases, and chemical and environmental as well as unknown threats. In the case of influenza epidemics with pandemic potential or other serious events, the Commission may recognize a state of public health emergency.[97] The impact of climate change is of relevance to pandemic risk insofar that changes in temperatures and climate may affect the outbreak and spread of diseases (see section 4 on emerging risks).

Analysis of national risk assessments

13 Member States and Norway have identified pandemics and/or epidemics as a main risk hazard: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. A distinction should be made between epidemics – more localised viral outbreaks – and pandemics – global scale outbreak. Member States tend to focus on an assessment of pandemics based on the greater severity and the geographical scope of this hazard.

Pandemics are considered one of the most severe threats with potential important human impacts on health and indirect socio-economic impacts as a consequence of the affected manpower running vital social and economic services. The recurrence of past pandemics suggests that this hazard may occur a few times a century, while more localised epidemics may occur more frequently. The overall uncertainty in measuring the level of impact and likelihood of pandemics make it a prominent hazard central to many NRAs.

Based on their assessment of pandemic scenarios, the United Kingdom and Norway assess influenza pandemics as posing the highest overall risk of all hazards addressed. Poland identifies pandemics as the second highest risk hazard and Estonia assesses this hazard in its top 'very high-risk emergencies' category, in both cases alongside floods. According to Denmark, unpredictability over the likelihood and impact of this hazard should grant it a prominent place in countries' priority ranking of hazards. In the case of Slovenia, while pandemics only rank as a medium overall risk, it is identified as one requiring considerable attention in future disaster risk management initiatives. In fact, an analysis of the few matrices provided suggests that, notwithstanding the scenario and assessment criteria and scales used, the risk level of pandemics is high to very high across all of the relevant Member States.

The cross-border nature of this threat is underlined by Member States. In its scenario assessment, Lithuania highlights the potential threat to third countries and neighbouring states in particular. Based on their scenario assessment, Estonia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark insist upon the cross-border dimension of this hazard by pointing to the high volatility and global nature of pandemics, accentuated by modern mobility beyond national borders.

Map 9: Participating states assessing epidemics/pandemics as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

2.6 Livestock epidemics/epizootics

The outbreak of illness among animal populations, particularly livestock, is also a major concern to countries in the EU. Animals and the foodstuffs production process can be exposed to a variety of serious infectious diseases. Some animal diseases are confined to a single species, while others can spread from one species to another. When a livestock epidemic spreads from animals to humans, this is called an epizootic or zoonotic development[98].

Some of the most severe epidemics include classic swine fever, avian influenza, foot-and-mouth disease, bluetongue, African Horse Sickness, Newcastle disease, West Nile virus and rabies. Animal diseases can be distinguished in two categories: non-zoonotic diseases, which are limited to infection amongst animals and zoonotic diseases which are transmissible to humans. Non-zoonotic diseases, include foot-and-mouth (a highly-contagious viral infection affecting all ruminants and pigs), classical swine fever (a viral infection affecting swine), bluetongue (a viral infection affecting ruminants sheep) and African Horse Sickness (a disease affecting horses transmitted by insects). Zoonotic diseases include: the highly pathogenic avian influenza HPAI (a viral infection of the influenza-A virus affecting birds), rabies (a fatal viral infection affecting the nervous system of mammals – the most recent form is present in bat populations), and the West Nile virus (a viral infection of birds, horses and humans spread by mosquitos).

All of these diseases are classified by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)[99] as 'list A' diseases, meaning that they are fast spreading diseases of major economic importance[100]. Indeed, such epidemics can result in substantial losses for governments, farmers and all other stakeholders involved in the livestock production chain. In countries with a highly industrialised agricultural sector, vulnerability to the spread of such diseases is particularly high. In addition, epizootic/zoonotic developments may also have serious human impacts on health.

Other serious forms of epidemics include those affecting farmed fish and shellfish in aquaculture, as well as outbreaks of organisms affecting the wider natural ecosystem, with harmful effects on the economy and possibly human life (toxic algae, jellyfish).

Similarly to pandemics, the impact of climate change is of relevance to livestock epidemic risk insofar that changes in temperatures and climate may affect the outbreak and spread of diseases (see section 4 on emerging risks).

EU legislation to control avian influenza is laid out in Directive 92/40/EEC, which requires the investigation of suspected cases of avian flu, as well as the humane killing of infected poultry and of feeding stuffs/equipment/manure as a means of limiting the spread of the disease[101]. Directive 2000/75/EC lays out the control rules and measures to fight bluetongue, establishing surveillance zones and possible bans on susceptible animals leaving these areas[102]. Swine fever control measures are laid out in Directive 2001/89/EC: in the case of an outbreak, all pigs of infected farms must be put down and cadavers destroyed; protection and surveillance zones must be put in place[103]. Measures to be taken to combat African Horse Sickness are laid out in Directive 92/35/EEC[104]. EU control measures for foot-and-mouth disease are laid out in Directive 2003/85/EC aiming at regaining the disease infected-free status of the territory in question[105]. For foot-and-mouth disease provisions are also made for the use of emergency vaccination. As a result, the EU has the biggest antigen bank worldwide for express vaccine formulations.

Analysis of national risk assessments

The risk of livestock epidemics is identified by 12 Member States: Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Terminology used by Member States includes: livestock epidemics; epizootic/zoonotic; animal diseases. In some cases, distinction is made between epizootic and non-epizootic diseases (Denmark; Lithuania; United Kingdom). In this overview, livestock epidemics combine both epizootic and non-epizootic developments.

Member States point to the potential socio-economic and human impacts of this hazard. All countries having assessed this risk scenario stress the impact on the production and trade of food products (poultry, meat) and the potential human impact through health risks associated with epizootics (Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania and the United Kingdom). In addition, Ireland points to the potential impact on tourism as a result of restricted access to country-side areas.

Results gathered from national risk matrices suggest that the risk of livestock epidemics is considered relatively low compared to similar hazards such as human-to-human transmissible pandemics. With the exception of Lithuania, all countries analysed ranked the probability of occurrence of a livestock epidemic as moderate and below, which remains a comparatively low score compared to other hazards assessed.

Livestock epidemics and epizootics have a clear cross-border dimension as the spread of the virus to neighbouring countries is possible due to the fast spread of viruses and global wild fauna migration irrespective of national borders. The cross-border dimension of this risk is addressed by Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania and the United Kingdom. In particular, Lithuania presents a scenario addressing the impact of migrating wild fauna in the Nemunas Delta, a well-studied passage for migrating birds along the Baltic coast, where birds infected with High Pathogenic Avian Influenza will increase the likelihood of viral infections in the area.

In identifying the possible future trends of this hazard, Denmark warns that climate change and global warming may increase the risk of livestock epidemic epizootic outbreaks as a result of changing geographical distribution of wild animals and varying migratory routes. Rising temperatures may also lead to the appearance of new fertile environments for diseases so far considered exotic in Europe. The impact of climate change as an emerging risk is further developed in section 4.

Map 10: Participating states assessing livestock epidemics as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

3 Man-made Non-malicious Disaster Risks 3.1 Industrial accidents

Establishments where significant[106] quantities of dangerous substances are handled or stored represent a major source of industrial accident risk for human populations and the environment. Substances may be considered dangerous because of health hazards (e.g. acute toxic substances), physical hazards (e.g. explosives, highly flammable substances) or environmental hazards. It is of great importance to understand the hazards involved in the activities of the establishments handling such substances, and to keep information and maps that illustrate the possible consequences of any accident that could happen at relevant establishments. Types of industry covered in this category include chemical installations, fuel storage, chemicals manufacture, general engineering, liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, storage and distribution, cement lime or plaster manufacture, processing of metals, production of pharmaceuticals, waste treatment etc..

The 'Seveso' Directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances sets a European framework for the prevention of, preparedness for and response to industrial accidents[107]. The Seveso Directive obliges Member States to ensure that operators have a policy in place to prevent major accidents. Operators handling dangerous substances above certain thresholds must notify their activities to the relevant national competent authorities, submit safety reports, establish a safety management system and set up an internal emergency plan. Member States shall ensure that the public likely to be affected by an industrial accident is regularly informed and that relevant information is kept permanently available for the public, also electronically. National competent authorities must ensure that external emergency plans are in place for the surrounding areas and that mitigation actions are planned. Regular inspections must take place. Account must also be taken of the objectives of prevention and control of major-accident hazards in land-use planning. There is a tiered approach to the level of controls: the larger the quantities of dangerous substances present within an establishment, the stricter the rules ('upper-tier' establishments have bigger quantities than 'lower-tier' establishments and are therefore subject to tighter control).

The 'Environmental Liability Directive' (ELD) aims at preventing and remedying environmental damage, defined as damage to biodiversity, water and land, based on the polluter-pays principle[108]. The Directive establishes strict liability for operators carrying out certain hazardous activities (chemical industry and other 'big' industry, carbon capture and storage (CCS) installations, waste management including shipment of waste and mining waste, water related activities, handling, use, manufacture of dangerous substances, preparations or biocides, transport of dangerous substances, Genetically modified organism (GMO)-related activities, offshore oil and gas activities etc.). They are obliged to take preventive action in case of imminent threat of environmental damage and to take remedial action in case of damage to the above indicated natural resources and their services (restore them to their baseline condition). The ELD does not establish remediation for traditional damage (damage to property, personal injury/health damage, economic loss). The Directive is supposed to create a deterrent effect on operators, inducing them to operate their activity safely, inter alia by carrying out risk assessments. The ELD does however not establish mandatory financial security at EU level but leaves this decision up to the Member States (eight have decided to introduce mandatory systems: Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece).

Accidental releases involving dangerous substances in chemical installations, petrochemical and oil refineries happen frequently in Europe and demonstrate the need for better and more efficient control of major industrial hazards. Industrial accident prevention and preparedness in Europe is aimed not only at preventing major catastrophes, such as the fire in the petroleum storage depot at Buncefield (United Kingdom, 2005) or the ammonium nitrate explosion in Toulouse (France, 2001), but also at smaller incidents that violate the right to a safe community, a safe workplace and a clean environment. Figure 1 below shows the number of major accidents in EU, European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries from 2001 – 2011.[109]

Figure 2: Number of Major Accidents in the eMARS database from 2001 – 2011 (JRC, 2012)

The number of Seveso establishments per country is illustrated in Map 11 below (see ranked order in Annex 9). At the end of 2012, there were 9,778 Seveso establishments in Europe. Of the total EU/EEA establishments, approximately 47% had upper tier status and 53% lower tier status in 2012. Typically, the most industrialised countries have the most establishments. Together, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom account for more than half (55%) of total Seveso establishments in Europe.

Map 11: number of Seveso establishments in EEA countries (JRC, 2012)

Analysis of national risk assessments

14 Member States and Norway have identified industrial/chemical accidents in their national risk assessments, six of which using a risk matrix: Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Analysis of this hazard in this overview regroups industrial accidents, chemical and hazardous material (hazmat) accidents. Member States also refer to chemical contamination (Poland, Sweden), hazardous industrial accidents (Hungary, Norway), the release of chemical substances (Germany) and accidents with dangerous substances (Denmark). While 'dangerous substances' generally refer to an array of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear substances, this section will concentrate on chemical substances, while radiological and nuclear accidents will be discussed in a later section of this overview.

The main consequences of industrial and chemical accidents identified in the NRAs are: human, due to risks of fire, explosion, and contamination; environmental, due to the risk of water and ground contamination; and economic, due to the damage and repair costs incurred and the cascading effect on surrounding economic activity.

According to the results of Member States' risk assessments, the risk of major industrial or chemical accident scenarios is considered relatively low, due to high levels of regulation and control measures in place (United Kingdom, Denmark), to the national phasing out of highly dangerous substances (Denmark) and, in some cases, to few existing lower and upper tier Seveso sites domestically (Ireland). Notwithstanding, while other hazards may supersede industrial accidents in their assessed level of risk (for example, in Greece these accidents are considered much less frequent than earthquakes and wildfire), Member States insist that the risk of industrial accidents cannot be underestimated (Greece; United Kingdom; Denmark; Ireland). This is particularly the case as many industrial and chemical sites may be located in close proximity to local communities (United Kingdom; Ireland; Lithuania; Norway).

The cross-border dimension of this risk is relevant insofar those industrial and chemical accidents may lead to the spreading of chemicals in the air or water (Lithuania). The risk of chemical accidents may also be the result of a transport accident in the import of dangerous chemical substances from neighbouring countries (Denmark).

Finally, Denmark's risk assessment addresses the link between climate change and industrial/chemical accidents, pointing to growing risks of extreme weather exposing chemical plants to increased risks of damage/disruption.

Map 12: Participating states assessing industrial/chemical accidents as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

3.2 Nuclear/radiological accidents

As defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a nuclear or radiological accident corresponds to "any accident involving facilities or activities from which a release of radiological material occurs or is likely to occur and which has resulted or may result in an international trans-boundary release that could be of radiological safety significance for another state".[110]

There are currently 131 nuclear reactors in operation in the EU, grouped on 56 sites in 14 Member States. Their safety record is such that although "incidents" have occurred and continue to occur, no "major accidents" have ever taken place[111]. In general nuclear accidents correspond to low probability/high impact type of risks, with potentially high human, economic and environmental (marine and inland) impacts. Due to the high potential impact of any nuclear accident, nuclear power plants are subject to strict safety and security controls and national authorities have strict prevention and mitigation measures in place.

Following the accident at the Fukushima reactors (Japan) in March 2011, it was agreed that all nuclear power plants in the EU should be reviewed by independent parties by undergoing a comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessment, also known as 'stress tests'. These 2011-12 stress tests re-assessed the safety margins of the EU power plants against the impacts from extreme external events, such as earthquakes and flooding. The first findings of the stress tests were published in a Commission Communication[112] and were followed on the technical level by the adoption of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) stress test report with a large number of recommendations for technical improvements at all nuclear power plants in all participating countries[113] and on the political level by a second Commission Communication[114] including an agreement to pursue further examinations.

After the Fukushima accidents, the nuclear fission energy area of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities[115] was re-oriented towards more safety research of existing reactors (accident prevention, probability risk assessment, severe accident management, plant life management). In the field of radiation protection, research is focused on better understanding the risks arising from low dose of radiation and long term exposures such as those occurring after a nuclear accident for the most exposed population. Better scientific knowledge in this field will help reduce uncertainties that are the source of increasing costs of countermeasures after an accident.

Analysis of national risk assessments

12 Member States and Norway identify the risk of nuclear and/or radiological accidents: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. Ireland and Sweden distinguish nuclear and radiological accidents, while both indicate nuclear accident as a hazard originating abroad. Germany addresses the threat of 'release of radioactive substances' including the threat of nuclear/radiological accidents as well as other forms of radioactive release.

National assessments attributed the limited likelihood of such hazard occurring, in part due to the high level of technical standards, organisation, authority control and safety culture. In terms of impact, however, there is a shared view that the human, environmental and economic impacts of a nuclear accident could be very severe, involving land/water contamination, longer-term health complications due to exposure to radiation (cancers) or psychological stress and important economic costs due to losses in the agricultural sector, reduced tourism and affected industrial production.

An analysis of risk matrices in national assessments received confirms the high impact/low probability risk of nuclear accidents through clear differences in the scores allocated for impact and those for likelihood of occurrence: the probability of occurrence of a nuclear accident obtains low to very low scores across the matrix assessments submitted. Comparatively, impact ratings are much higher.

The cross-border dimension of this hazard is underlined by Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania and Norway. The spreading of radiation in the air, the contamination of the environment and the economic impacts will affect both the country in which the nuclear accident occurs and neighbouring countries. In fact, Ireland identifies the threat of a nuclear accident as an external risk – distinctive from a domestic radiological incident –, Norway stressed that it is "surrounded" by countries with some form of nuclear activity, and Lithuania breaks down its scenario analysis into the internal and external dimension of the threat.

Map 13: Participating states assessing nuclear/radiological accidents as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

3.3 Major transport accidents

Transport accidents refer to maritime, air and land accidents involving the transport of people, goods or services. Transport accidents can be caused both intentionally (e.g. terrorist act) or unintentionally. Most common are transport accidents related to technical or mechanical failures or involving human factors.

Maritime transport constitutes a complex network posing several challenges from a safety, environmental and security standpoint. The sector, with many elements of critical infrastructure, needs a comprehensive approach in assessing associated risk landscape with quantitative risk analysis. From a risk analysis perspective, the maritime transport is a network of maritime operations that interface with shore-side operations at intermodal connections as part of the overall European supply chains or domestic commercial operations. The networks have components that include vessels, port facilities, waterways and waterway infrastructure, and intermodal connections and users, including crew, passengers, and navigation infrastructure and services. With regards vessels, risk factors should be associated with events such as on board fire, collision with another vessel, explosion, sinking, grounding and contact with an industrial fixed structure. In the case of cargo, oil and gas transport by sea poses both safety and environmental challenges. Hazards include wasting oil and gas, injuries, ship and property damage and environmental degradation. Maritime transportation of dangerous goods and related hazards has become some of the most important issues in transportation and environmental discussions. In addition, most major ports, which are no longer restricted to industrial areas due to urban development, are located next to volatile maritime infrastructure that could lead to mass conflagration as a result of a natural event or man-made intentional attack. These risks could have environmental impacts on much larger areas due to toxic gas releases.

Transport accidents in the aviation sector can occur anywhere but are more likely near or at aerodromes. Large aircraft commercial air transport accidents are rare but can have significant consequences. Catastrophic accidents can mean large numbers of lives are lost in one event. In terms of numbers of fatalities losses of control and flight into terrain represent the biggest threats. In 1977, the Tenerife disaster, a fatal collision between two Boeing 747 passenger aircrafts on the Spanish island, resulted in a total of 583 fatalities, and remains the deadliest civil accident to date. In addition, security events (hijacking and terrorist acts) can result in catastrophic accidents.

Land transport accidents may occur on railways or roads and on/in related infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, stations, stopping-places, freight terminals, etc. Transport accidents in the railway sector include collisions between trains running on the same track or changing tracks; failure of the railway infrastructure (track, bridges, embankments, etc.) or train control system causing derailment or collision. Transport accidents in the road sector can occur through collisions between buses, heavy goods vehicles, cars, etc. and in connection with road works. The most common transport accidents are road traffic crashes, accounting for around 26 000 fatalities in 2013 and many more serious injuries, at large cost to society. In the case of severe weather scenarios but notably for storms, heat, snow/ice and heavy rainfall, the risk of road traffic crashes increases substantially because of reduced visibility, slippery road surfaces or winds affecting the vehicle's direction of movement. The risks can be reduced by properly sensitising road users to the need to adapt speed and driving behaviour to the road conditions. Both for road and railway sectors, accidents in tunnels, on bridges or in areas with limited possibilities of evacuation can constitute a special risk, especially if combined with the risk of explosion of dangerous goods and/or the risk of on-board fire. The Mont Blanc tunnel accident of 1999 resulted both in immediate human casualties and long-term economic and social disruptions due to its ensuing closure for 3 years. In the rail sector, accident rates have been showing a consistent improvement year on year, although in 2013, major derailments occurred in Bretigny-sur-Orge, France, and in Galicia, Spain.

Finally, in agreement with Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods, competent Authorities of the Member States may impose restrictions on transport of dangerous goods. However, the restrictions imposed on one transport mode may just lead to transfer of the risk to other transport mode or to alternative routes in neighbouring countries. In some cases, the overall result may be an increase of risk to the public (e.g. if the alternative transport mode is less safe or if the alternative route is much longer). This transfer of risk should be taken into account in the assessment carried out by the competent Authority deciding the restriction.

Analysis of national risk assessments

10 contributions address the risk of transport accidents: Estonia, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The types of transport accidents assessed include maritime, aircraft and land (rail & road), as well as the transport across all types of sectors of hazardous materials.

Despite an increase in the volume and intensity of traffic across all three transport sectors, which would in principle increase the probability of occurrence of major transport accidents, higher safety standards, greater regulation and control measures have in fact brought about a reduction of major accidents in recent years. All assessments underline the need to look at transport accident risks due to their potentially severe human, economic and environmental impacts.

Maritime transport accidents are granted particular attention across the NRAs. As the below map illustrates, most of the countries addressing this hazard have coastal borders. Lithuania, Sweden and Norway only address maritime accidents, while Estonia and Ireland assess the risk of maritime transport accidents higher than for other forms of transport. Maritime transport accidents involving cruise ships, containers and tankers tend to present high risk due to the severity of their human, economic and environmental impacts. Through different scenarios, Estonia, Norway and Lithuania focus on the environmental impacts of maritime accidents. Sweden's scenario involving the contamination of waterworks highlight the human impact of these accidents; Norway and Denmark underline the risk of high number of casualties resulting from a maritime accident.

Aircraft accidents may result in high human impact of numerous casualties as is identified by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Land transport accidents – rail and road – are generally considered of lower risk for the very low number of accidents requiring an emergency response at a national scale, combined with improved technical and safety standards across all the transport sectors (Denmark, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom).

Of relevance to all forms of transport accidents, however, is the risk of accidents in the transport of hazardous material (hazmat)[116]. This risk is generally addressed alongside industrial accidents (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom). The causes of such accidents are those relevant to any transport accident, but the consequences due to spillage, fires and explosions of these substances will resemble those of chemical accidents identified in the above section, affecting health, property and the environment.

The cross-border dimension of this hazard is rarely referred to in national assessments, but its relevance is clear. As Lithuania concludes from its scenario analysis, the spillage of fuel or hazardous substances resulting from a major maritime transport accident may affect waters and coastlines of neighbouring countries.

Finally, the cascade effect of increased extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change on transport accidents is briefly mentioned in Denmark's assessment.

Map 14: Participating states assessing transport accidents as a main risk hazard (DG ECHO, 2014) (dark grey: participating states assessing hazard as a main risk; light grey: participating states not identifying this hazard in their submitted national risk assessments; white: countries for which no information is available)

3.4 Loss of critical infrastructure

The potential for loss of critical infrastructure has been specifically identified as a cascade effect of most of the other risks addressed in this review. There is also an additional risk of direct malicious and non-malicious interference to the normal operation of critical infrastructure.

The impacts arising from a loss of critical infrastructure, are the disruption to, or complete cessation of, the delivery of essential services to large sections of the public. Essential services include the provision of energy, water, food, communications, health and emergency response services, transport and finance. The effects on citizens arising from disruption or cessation of any of these essential services will depend on the duration of the disruption, the time of year, the resilience of the service, and the response by the authorities, but will probably involve a societal effect, economic consequences, and in extreme cases casualties.[117]

In 2006 a major electricity blackout occurred, which affected 15 million households for about two hours. The initial cause was a routine disconnection of a power line crossing in Germany to allow a ship to pass beneath the overhead cables. However, as a result of insufficient communication between the operators, unexpected load flows resulted in the loss of a key distribution interconnector. Within seconds, an electrical blackout had cascaded across Europe, including Poland, the Benelux countries, France, Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Greece and the Balkans.

In 2003, storms caused a cross-border blackout when the power line which supplied electricity to Italy from Switzerland was damaged, causing it to trip out. The cascading effect disrupted power supply to Italy from France and Switzerland. The cascading effect on power lines blacked out nearly all of Italy for 12 hours and part of Switzerland for 3 hours, affecting a total of 56 million people. Hundreds were trapped in underground trains. 110 mainline trains were cancelled, with 30,000 people stranded on trains. All flights in Italy were also cancelled; many people spent the night sleeping in train stations, and on the streets in Rome.

Critical infrastructures are complex interconnected systems that are subject to a wide range of risks and hazards, are interdependent and can extend well beyond the geographical and jurisdiction limits of one Member State. To this end, achieving a harmonised risk assessment and risk management approach is important (for all previously mentioned reasons, such as comparability of risks) yet a lot remains to be done.

The European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP)[118] contributed extensively to improving the collaboration of Member States towards this objective. EPCIP has several elements among which a legislative one, the Council Directive 2008/114/EC setting out to create a procedure for the identification and designation of critical infrastructures[119], and a common approach to the assessment of the improvements needs in the protection of such critical infrastructures.[120] The revised EPCIP has taken a much more p