EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/97

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man made disasters’

COM(2009) 82 final

2009/C 318/19

Rapporteur: Ms SÁNCHEZ MIGUEL

On 23 February 2009 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man made disasters’

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 September 2009. The rapporteur was Ms SÁNCHEZ MIGUEL.

At its 456th plenary session, held on 30 September and 1 October 2009 (meeting of 1 October), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 165 votes to none, with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions

1.1 Prevention is a fundamental principle of the protection and conservation of the environment, as well as a way of minimising the potential impact on the population of disasters, both natural and those of human origin, which may have been caused by the unsustainable use of natural resources. The EESC has repeatedly called for the competent authorities of each Member State to implement and monitor compliance with the existing legal provisions.

1.2 The overall disaster prevention method proposed seems to us to be appropriate. We consider all the information-gathering tools to be essential, both for assessing the current situation (inventory, risk maps and good practice) and for implementing the annual work programmes of the Community Mechanism for civil protection through the Monitoring and Information Centre. The role of the local authorities, their input on methods and their preventive and emergency response activities, should be highlighted in the proposal.

1.3 With regard to the systems proposed for financing prevention measures, it seems to us — looking at current disaster prevention systems and specific systems linked to agricultural, industrial policy etc — that financing should be extended to other areas of preparation, planning and early warning. Financial resources should be sufficient so as not to undermine the current effectiveness of the Mechanism.

1.4 Research into disaster prevention measures is essential and should be developed. It is not enough simply to refer to the Seventh Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development. Funding needs to be earmarked for specific risk prevention programmes, not only at Community level but also in the Member States.

1.5 Finally, international cooperation on prevention complements that which already exists in the fields of emergency response and aid. This is based on solidarity and takes place not only under the auspices of the UN but also under various international agreements in which the EU participates - Euromed, Lomé, Latin America etc.

2. Introduction

2.1 The EU has undertaken to adopt preventive measures to combat climate change not only because of the international agreements it has entered into but also because of the series of man-made disasters which have occurred in Europe in recent years. This preventive approach could not only help to maintain and restore our landscape, seas and rivers but also serve as a model for other countries.

2.2 These measures, which are set out in the communication under review, derive from an approach adopted in most Community countries in specific circumstances (floods and fires), leading to the establishment in a short space of time of coordination at Community level which has permitted quick and effective, and sometimes international action.

2.3 The EESC has been calling for coordination and above all Community-level development of an integrated European approach to disaster prevention (1). However, we should like to stress that these prevention measures need to be accompanied by a Community aid system applicable to disasters of all kinds; this should be seen as a system of aid based on solidarity, not only for Community countries but for all countries which need our know-how and resources in order to minimise the impact of these disasters.

2.4 Prevention is a fundamental principle of environmental protection and conservation and for minimising the damage to the civilian population, and its aim is the sustainable use of natural resources. The sharp increase in recent years in the loss of human life, loss of biodiversity and economic losses makes it necessary to reconsider compliance with existing laws. The EESC has insisted on the need for the competent authorities of each Member State to enforce and monitor existing laws (2), as some disasters could have been prevented or at least mitigated.

2.5 The aims for prevention set out in this communication do not apply to the EU alone and thus on 16-19 June, the Second Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Geneva, in which the EU played a major role. Broadly speaking, the platform's conclusions reflect the aims put forward by the European Commission, with some of them being referred to in the text.

3. Summary of the proposals contained in the communication

3.1 This communication is the result of an agreement between the Commission on the one hand and the European Parliament and the Council on the other aimed at stepping up Community action for preventing disasters and mitigating their effects.

3.2 The key to the establishment of a preventive approach lies in the measures already adopted at European level which form part of the current sectoral legislation. The aim is to bring order and coherence to the existing actions and measures to ensure that they are complied with as a whole. In particular attention should be drawn to the following: 3.2.1 Obtaining a better understanding of the starting situation and the status quo by creating an inventory of information on disasters and by spreading best practices, thus allowing the exchange of information between interested parties. This would make it possible to draw up hazard/risk maps in line with Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (3). This will require the promotion of research of the kind set out in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013). 3.2.2 Linking the actors and policies throughout the disaster management cycle is another of the key elements proposed. The Community Mechanism for civil protection will be of key importance in view of the wealth of experience acquired through its activities. But emphasis is also placed on disaster prevention training and awareness-raising aimed at the general public. Improving the linking between actors is also stressed and the establishment of an integrated European network composed of representatives of the various national departments is also proposed. 3.2.3 Making existing instruments perform better is one of the keys to prevention, especially the more efficient targeting of Community funding, as prevention is cheaper than cure. These measures should be included in one of the funds (e.g. afforestation/reforestation projects), within the framework of existing Community legislation which lays down preventive rules for many natural disasters.

3.3 Finally, it is proposed that international cooperation in the field of prevention be reinforced. The Commission intends to coordinate with the UN's International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR) as well as with other organisations in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Association and the neighbourhood policy.

4. Comments on the proposal

4.1 The Committee considers the content of the Commission communication to be very positive. Although it introduces few innovations, the overall position it takes is tenable. If all the existing Community rules were complied with, preventive measures would often be effective in preventing and mitigating the disasters which are unfortunately occurring with increasing frequency. Prevention is one of the actions most frequently advocated by the Committee (4).

4.2 Some of the proposals, such as those on floods, are valuable as the basis for an overall approach and not just in response to specific events. We consider that disasters, whether of natural or of human origin, require an overarching prevention method, based on maximum information on the current state of our landscape, seas, rivers and atmosphere, and on any leaks that might occur in underground carbon dioxide storage sites. Thus, the proposal for the creation of an inventory of information on disasters would make it possible to draw up risk maps, as provided for in the directive on floods, which would require preventive action by the competent authorities.

4.2.1 Which authorities are responsible for the environment depends on the system of allocation of government powers of the State in question (5). However, we consider it important that it should be these authorities which are in the first instance responsible for prevention activities and the provision of information and education to civil society. The effectiveness of the measures put in place to prevent or mitigate the effects of disasters, both natural and of human origin, depend to a great extent on these authorities.

4.3 We feel that the importance of the Civil Protection Financial Instrument (6) should be stressed. Through its annual work programmes this covers, in addition to the activities of the Community Mechanism for civil protection (transport, training etc), other activities relating to preparation, planning, early warning and prevention.

4.4 The 2009 work programme (WP), approved in November 2008, provides for a significant increase in cooperation projects on prevention, with the budget increasing from EUR 1.1 million (2008 WP) to EUR 2.25 million (2009 WP), which will help to prevent and mitigate long-term damage by improving risk assessment. Civil protection actors at all levels of government and society may participate.

4.5 Another significant feature of the work programme is the significant increase in the support and preparation activities of the Mechanism, one of the objectives of which is to support the Commission in implementing the disaster prevention strategy and to improve knowledge of disaster prevention, with a budget increase from EUR 650 000 (2008 WP) to EUR 1 180 000. The 2009 work programme also includes a chapter on exchange of best practice in the field of prevention.

4.6 The dissemination of best practice will not only make for better coordination of the competent authorities but also for improved application in risk prevention and specific action in the event of disasters. We feel that the Community Mechanism for civil protection (7), through the Monitoring and Information Centre, should be responsible for centralising these databases in order to make them more operational.

4.7 In this connection, we consider that the proposal to improve the linking between actors through the establishment of an integrated European network composed of representatives of the various national departments will not only make it possible to apply best practice in the event of disasters but will also have a preventive function in cases where intervention is usually difficult.

4.8 One important area is the financing of prevention measures - two systems are proposed:

— the establishment in 2009 of an inventory of existing Community instruments capable of supporting disaster prevention activities in order to assess the degree of use and identify any gaps in their coverage (8);

— the development of a catalogue of prevention measures financed from different Community policies, e.g. reforestation/afforestation projects.

4.9 The EESC considers that, in addition to these proposals, consideration should also be given to the appropriate financing of the Civil Protection Financial Instrument to ensure that the new tasks do diminish the Community Mechanism’s capacity to act, not only in terms of prevention but also in direct disaster response.

4.10 The Committee also once again stresses that investment in prevention research is a necessity and a matter of priority. A start is being made on this in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013). Other sources of funding for prevention activities could also be used, however, from specific policy areas, such as funding from the second pillar of the CAP for forestry-related activities. We feel, therefore, that the Commission should view all Community policies (and not only the CAP) as potential funding sources, including regional policy, energy policy, climate change, etc., to ensure that effective preventive measures can be applied to any type of disaster.

4.11 We should also like to stress the importance of awareness-raising among the general public and social and voluntary organisations as to the need for prevention policies as a basis for improved safety and appropriate disaster response. Training and raising the awareness of civil society in the fields of disaster prevention and the sound use of natural resources should be a key responsibility of the competent authorities, especially local authorities, given their proximity to resources and to the use of these resources.

4.12 Finally, the proposal to reinforce international cooperation on prevention and not just aid is one of the key elements, and here the UN's International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN-ISDR) for developing countries plays an important role. Thought should be given to ways of making intervention mechanisms more universal, again under the aegis of the UN, without however minimising European intervention, which has been so useful in recent disasters.

4.13 The European Neighbourhood Policies should systematically include a chapter on risk prevention cooperation in order to promote sustainable development, in line with the Millennium Development Goals and the Hyogo Framework for Action of the United Nations’ ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction).

Brussels, 1 October 2009. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) Improving the Community civil protection mechanism – a response to natural disasters - CESE 495/2008, OJ C 204, 9.8.2008.

(2) Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation — CESE 125/2005, OJ C 221, 8.9.2005.

(3) OJ L 288, 6.11.2007.

(4) The Committee has drawn up two opinions on flood regulations, (CESE 125/2005, OJ C 221, 8.9.2005) Flood risk management - Flood prevention, protection and mitigation and (CESE 737/2006, OJ C 195, 18.8.2006), Directive on the assessment and management of floods. Both opinions urge that Community rules be applied and in particular that coordinated prevention measures be drawn up which are applicable throughout the EU, with special reference to their inclusion in river basin plans. But the Committee stated its views more forcefully in the opinion on Improving the Community civil protection mechanism – a response to natural disasters, referred to above, which, in addition to a number of general comments, contains a number of specific recommendations on floods and fires.

(5) Point 12 of the Platform's conclusions calls for the development of partnerships that both recognise and strengthen the mutual dependence of central and local governments and civil society.

(6) Council Decision of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (2007/162/EC, EURATOM).

(7) For the Community Mechanism for civil protection see the opinion on Improving the Community civil protection mechanism – a response to natural disasters, section 3, which refers to the need to centralise all information through this mechanism.

(8) Point 17 of the Platform's conclusions acknowledges the assessment of potential financing instruments available globally for reducing the risk of disaster.