EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 217 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
EU STRATEGY FOR SUPPORTING DI SASTER RISK REDUCTION IN 
DEVELOPING OCUNTRIES 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
  
{COM(2009) 84 final} 
{SEC(2009) 218} {SEC(2009) 220}
 
EN 2   EN 1. I NTRODUCTION  
Evidence has long suggested that disaster risk reduction (DRR) has a high ratio of  benefits to 
costs. The UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISD R) defines DRR as: 
"Actions taken to reduce the ri sk of disasters and the advers e impacts of natural hazards, 
through systematic efforts to analyse and mana ge the causes of disasters, including through 
avoidance of hazards, reduced social and eco nomic vulnerability to hazards, and improved 
preparedness for adverse events".  
The EU is the world's largest donor of Of ficial Development Assistance (ODA) and 
Humanitarian Aid. It has a global presence and wide experience with i ndividual DRR projects 
and programmes, but is lacking a strategic fram ework to guide its DRR support in developing 
countries in a coherent and coordinated manner.  
This proportionate impact assessment has informed the Commission’s adoption of a 
communication on an EU Strategy for supportin g DRR in developing countries through both 
development cooperation and humanitarian aid,  to help support th e 2005 Hyogo Framework 
for Action1 and the achievement of the Mille nnium Development Goals (MDGs).  
The strategy is half of a pack age covering aspects of DDR within2 and beyond the EU, 
addressing also appropriate links between the two dimensions. It complements and supports 
existing EU climate change initiatives such as the Global Climate Change Alliance3 and the 
EU Action Plan on Climate Change and Development,4 and it will contribute to the 
development of climate change adaptation polic ies and measures to be decided under the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Cha nge (UNFCCC) post-2012 arrangement.  
The Commission is proposing the strategy under Article 180 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Community.5 
2. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The Commission stated its in tention to propose an EU st rategy for supporting DRR in 
developing countries in the Green Paper Adapting to climate change in Europe — options for 
EU action6 and in the communications Building a Global Climate Change Alliance , and 
Reinforcing the Union’s di saster response capacity.7  
                                                 
1 Adopted in 2005 at the World Co nference on Disast er Reduction. 
2 Commission communication Towards a Community strategy for the prevention of natural and man-
made disasters (COM(2008)xx). 
3 COM (2007) 540 of 18.9.2007. 
4 Council document 15164/04. 
5 Article 180(1): ‘The Community and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development 
cooperation and shall consult each other on thei r aid programmes, including in international 
organisations and during international conferences. They may undertake joint action. Member States 
shall contribute if necessary to the implementation of Community aid programmes.’ (2) ‘The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to in paragraph 1.’ 
6 COM (2007) 354 of 29.6.2007. 
7 COM (2008) 130 of 5.3.2008. 
 
EN 3   EN Work started in January 2008 when a Comm ission core working group consisting of 
representatives of the Directorates-General  for Development, External Relations and 
Humanitarian Aid was set up. Wi der internal consu ltations took place vi a an inter-service 
group consisting of representatives of the Dir ectorates-General for Development, External 
Relations, Humanitarian Aid, Environment, Eur opeAid, Research, the Joint Research Centre, 
the Secretariat-General, Health and Consumer s, and Information Society and Media. This 
group worked mainly via email and met tw ice during the period February-July 2008. 
External consultations began with bilateral m eetings with key stakeh olders, including key 
civil society organisations, UN agencies, pa rtner countries, international financing 
institutions, EU Member States and the privat e sector during the period February to December 
2008. Moreover, a public Internet consultati on took place between April and June 2008, on 
the basis of an issues paper developed with input from the groups mentioned above. Thirty-
five substantive contributions were received  from individuals a nd groups including EU 
Member States, the UN system, academia, relief a nd humanitarian organisations, civil society, 
international finance institutions  and the private sector. See 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/ about/consultation/index.cfm . The Commission built extensively 
upon the contributions received in drafting th e communication and this  impact assessment. 
3. P ROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY CONTEXT  
3.1. Disasters are on the increase – deve loping countries are affected most 
Over the last 30 years, disasters have increa sed both in frequency and intensity. The total 
number reported rose from 73 in 1975 to about  440 in 2007. The number of climatic disasters 
has almost tripled, from 1280 betwee n 1978 and 1987 to 3435 between 1998 and 2007.8  
Disasters hit developing c ountries hardest, as they are the most vulnerable and have the least 
capacity to cope. For example, the 6.6 eart hquake which hit Iran in 2003 killed over 40 000 
people. By contrast, the 6.5 earthquake which h it central California four  days earlier took two 
lives and injured 40 people.9 Disasters also divert substa ntial national resources from 
development to relief, recovery and reconstructi on, depriving the poor of  the resources needed 
to escape poverty. In Aceh, Indone sia, the 2004 tsunami is estim ated to have increased the 
proportion of people living below th e poverty line from 30% to 50%.10  
In addition, dependency on healthy animals and plan ts (crops) is high in developing countries, 
so that disasters caused by biol ogical hazards can have negativ e impacts on food security and 
subsequently cause new disasters.  For biological hazard s it should also be kept in mind that 
incursions of diseases or pests if not adeq uately dealt with can easily become endemic, 
thereby impacting substantially the "economic" st atus of the country or region and hence the 
mid- and longer-term economic perspectives.  
                                                 
8 Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. 
9 DFID (2006): Reducing the Risk of Disasters . 
10 Idem. 
 
EN 4   EN Box 1: The cost of inaction 
The Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 killed more t han 225 000 people in 11 countries, inundating 
coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters high. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in 
history. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thaila nd were hardest hit. There was no warning system to 
detect tsunamis in the Indian Ocean and local popu lations lacked the knowledge to detect the threat 
and take action to protect themselves.11 
In 1999, Mozambique requested international a ssistance of USD 2.7 million to prepare for and 
mitigate impending flood risk, but only half of this  sum was eventually mobilised. In March 2000, in 
the wake of terrible flooding, the internatio nal community and NGOs gave USD 100 million in 
emergency assistance and relief, to be followed by  an additional USD 450 million for rehabilitation.12 
On the role of climate change, the Intergove rnmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
found that some extreme weather events have  changed in frequency and/or intensity.13 These 
changes may already be contributing to the increasing number and intensity of recent 
disasters, making the need for effective DRR even greater and more immediate. 
3.2. Investing in DRR pays off 
Disasters can be avoided. There are ways to reduce risks and to limit impacts, for example by 
addressing the root causes of people’s vulnera bility and increasing their capacity to cope. 
DRR comprises preparedness, mitigation and prev ention. DRR aims to enhance the levels of 
resilience of disaster prone c ountries and societies,  with a focus on long-term building of 
capacity and institutions rather than just on post -event crisis manageme nt. It is underpinned 
by knowledge about how to manage risk, build capacity, and make use of information and 
communication technology and ear th observation tools.  
Box 2: DRR success stories 
In November 2008, the Nevado del Huila volcano in  southern Colombia erupted causing three 
avalanches and killing about 10 people. Thanks to  the early warning system developed by the 
Colombian Red Cross in close collaboration with aut horities, with technical assistance of French Red 
Cross within the framework of DIPECHO, 3,800 pe ople were evacuated. A similar eruption in 1994 
had resulted in 1200 dead and some 500 missing persons. 
The category four Hurricane Michelle in 2001 was the strongest hurricane to hit Cuba in 50 years. 
Thanks to Cuba’s effective early warning system and its hurricane preparedness plan, 700 000 people 
were evacuated, of whom 270 000 were provided with  temporary accommodation and basic needs for 
a longer time. Some 777 000 animals were moved to safe areas. The hurricane was a major economic 
setback, but only five deaths and 12 injuries were reported. 14 
In 1998 a tsunami struck the north-west coast of Papua New Guinea claiming 2 200 lives. Thanks to 
DRR efforts by the Asian Disaster Reduction Center following this disaster, a tsunami in 2000 
destroyed thousands of houses but caused no deaths. 15  
Only two schools were left standing in Grenada aft er the passage of Hurricane Ivan (September 
                                                 
11 http://www.tsunami2004.net/ 
12 ISDR (2004): Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives . 
13 IPCC (2007): 4th Assessment Report. 
14 ISDR (2004): Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives . 
15 ADRC (2001) . 
 
EN 5   EN 2004). Both had been subject to retrofit and one of th em was used to house disp laced persons after the 
event.16 
There are also examples of good EU action in this field. A few years ago fears for a bird flu pandemic 
pushed the Commission to undertake additional preventa tive action, which has proven successful in 
controlling the disease within the Community. Furth ermore, numerous initiatives at global level are 
being undertaken to stop the disease from spre ading and being transmitted to humans, often with 
Commission financial support. The fact that efforts a re joined globally and that many third countries 
have prepared national integrated human and animal health action plans to control possible disease 
occurrence shows that disa ster preparedness pays off. 
Effective DRR can reduce the loss  of life and property.  Studies suggest bene fits in terms of 
prevented or reduced disaster impacts of two to  four dollars for each dollar invested in DRR.17 
3.3. International efforts on DRR 
In recent years, the focus has moved from ma inly responding to disasters to implementing 
comprehensive DRR approaches. In 2005, 168 governments adopted the Hyogo Framework 
for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disaster  and the 
Commission18 fully supports its implementation. The challenge now is to translate it into 
effective action at global, regi onal, national and local level.  Many developing countries are 
putting considerable effort into implementation,  but are constrained by lack of funding and 
capacity.19 The 2nd Global Platform for DRR, to take place in June 2009, aims to sustain the 
Hyogo momentum and will take stock of progress. Growing international awareness is 
evident from initiatives such as the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR).  
Negotiations under the UNFCCC, in  particular the Bali Action Plan adopted in 2007, have 
also identified DRR as a means of adapting to climate change in order to reduce its impact, 
and as an adjunct to long-term efforts to mitigate climate change.
20  
3.4. Grounds for EU action on DRR 
Both the 2005 European Consensus on Develo pment and the 2007 European Consensus on 
Humanitarian Aid commit the EU to suppor ting DRR policy and action. The 2008 Council 
conclusions on reinforcing the Union's disaster  response capacity invited the Commission to 
present a proposal for an EU strategy for D RR in developing countries. The European 
Parliament has also repeatedly argued for a more robust DRR policy and increased financial 
means. 
The majority of EU Member States and the Commission support DRR efforts in all 
developing country regions on a regular basis and there exist good examples of EU 
coordination, for example in Bangladesh wher e the Comprehensive Disaster Management 
Programme 2010-2014 will be jointly supported by th e EC and DFID. However, in spite of 
this, current EU action is non-st rategic as it mainly follows an ad hoc project/programme 
approach and is often uncoordinated and inadequa te. For example, in 10 years of intervention 
                                                                                                                                                         
16 World Bank. Grenada, Hurrican e Ivan: Preliminary Assessment of Damages, September 17, 2004. 
17 DFID (2006): Reducing th e Risk of Disasters. 
18 Only governments could adopt the Hyogo Framework, which is why the Commission has not formally 
adopted it. 
19 ISDR: Global Review 2007. 
 
EN 6   EN in disaster preparedness, especially through its DIPECHO programmes in  six disaster-prone 
areas in the world, the Commission is aware of  very few formal cooperation examples with 
Member States. It seems that the effectivenes s of EU action is hampered by a number of 
factors: 
• Lack of policy and strategic frameworks on DRR. While the Hyogo Framework 
provides harmonised DRR guidance, it is not readily usable for development 
cooperation purposes. For example, the regional context is barely mentioned in spite of the comparative advantage and economies of scale to be gained from regional action. Only the UK and Sweden (S IDA) has so far developed a specific 
DRR policy/startegy but other Member Stat es are planning to do so. Indeed, some 
10 Member States and the Commission are currently stepping up individual 
support for DRR. This will inevitably l ead to more fragmentation and/or 
duplication of effort if there is no EU strategy to guide such efforts. 
• Lack of a common voice. The EU currently lacks a common voice on DRR even 
though its thinking on DRR is clearly conv erging. DRR needs to be part of the 
political dialogue between the EU and developing countries and will be most 
effective if the EU’s message is consistent and coordinated. For example, the lack of a distinct and coordinated EU presence at the 1st Global Platform on Disaster 
Reduction in 2007 was evident. The UNFCCC is another forum in which a coordinated EU position on DRR and c limate change would be helpful.  
• Limited progress with the integration of DRR . Given the risk that disasters pose to 
development, DRR needs to be better  integrated into EU development 
cooperation. Such efforts are currently ongoing in several Memb er States and the 
Commission but progress so far has been uneven and limited and needs to be improved.
 21 
• Limited linking of D RR and climate change. DRR is an essential part of successful 
adaptation to climate change and effective DRR increasingly needs to take account of the changes in risk associat ed with climate change. However, in 
practice, the benefits and synergies of linking DRR and adaptation are not 
systematically identifie d and capitalised upon.  
All of the above suggests that an EU strate gy supporting DRR in deve loping countries would 
give the EU the strategic direction it is curre ntly lacking, while at the same time pulling 
together all ongoing EU DRR effort s, allowing benefits and syne rgies to be exploited in a 
more coherent and coordinated manner, incl uding those related to policy coherence, non-
duplication of effort, cost-eff ectiveness, efficiency and exchange of best practice.  
4. O
BJECTIVES  
In light of the challenges outline d in the previous section, the overall objective should be to 
contribute to sustainable development and poverty eradication by reducing the burden 
of disasters on the poor and the most vuln erable countries and population groups, by 
means of improved DRR. 
                                                 
21 Tearfund (2007): Institutional dono r progress with mainstreaming DRR. 
 
EN 7   EN Strategic objectives would then be to: 
(1) support developing countries in integra ting DRR considerations into their 
development policies and planning effectively; 
(2) support developing countries and societies in reducing disaster risk  more effectively, 
through targeted action on disaster pr evention, mitigation and preparedness;  
(3) integrate DRR considerations more effectiv ely into EU development and humanitarian 
aid policies and programming, and crisis response where it covers disaster response 
and recovery. 
5. P OLICY OPTIONS  
With a view to meeting the above objectives, the Commission examined three policy options.  
5.1. Policy options 
Option 1 : No new EU policy or strategy  on DRR (baseline scenario). The European 
Commission and EU Member States would continue  with ‘business as usual’, i.e. mostly a 
programme or project approach to DRR, addressing key needs in  some key countries/regions 
but without any strategic guidance or m eans for strengthening EU coordination, 
complementary and coherence on DRR beyond existing one-off actions and approaches. 
Option 2 : An EC strategy for supporting DRR in developing countries which would guide 
Commission instruments only. This second opti on is a ‘limited approach’ in which the 
Commission would adopt its own unil ateral strategy towards DRR.  
This would allow strategic programming of increased Commission resources for DRR, in 
particular under the 10th European Developm ent Fund, and guidance on mainstreaming DRR 
considerations in the Community’s overa ll development and humanitarian aid.  
Option 3 : A comprehensive EU strategy for supporting DRR in developing countries , 
encompassing both development cooperation an d humanitarian aid, in support of the Hyogo 
Framework for Action. This strategy would be supported by both EC and Member States’ 
instruments. 
This third option would reflect the European  Consensus on Development and Humanitarian 
Aid and be based on the EU’s comparative advantage as collectively the largest donor in the world, with global coverage. It would use th e emerging momentum on  DRR and strengthen 
EU coordination, complementary and coherence fo r increased efficiency and concrete results 
in developing countries. 
5.2. Option 3 — an EU strategy supporting DRR in developing countries 
The proposed strategy would build on strategic work done by the EC
22 and Member States, 
and DRR lessons learnt from all developing c ountry regions. While the priority areas for 
                                                 
22 Commission communications on Reinforcing the Union's disaster response capacity (COM(2008)130); 
Building a Global Climate Change Alliance between the European Union and poor developing 
countries most vulnerable to climate change (COM(2007)540); Reinforcing EU disaster and crisis 
 
EN 8   EN intervention below would be fully in line wi th the priorities of the Hyogo Framework, the 
strategy’s objectives and the implementation prio rities would specifica lly reflect the context 
of existing partnership and c ooperation between the EU and de veloping countries, including 
at the regional level. 
(1) ensure that DRR is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for 
implementation;  
(2) identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks — and enhance early warning;  
(3) use knowledge, innovation, and education to buil d a culture of safety  and resilience at 
all levels;  
(4) reduce the underlying risk factors;  
(5) strengthen disaster preparedness fo r effective response at all levels. 
5.2.1. Geographic coverage, scope and approach 
All developing countries23 and EU Oversees Countries an d Territories (O CTs) would be 
covered by the strategy, but particular attention w ould be given to disaster-prone regions, least 
developed and highly vulnerable countries and localities, and the most vulnerable groups.24 
Collaboration on DRR with th e outermost regions would also be furthered. 
The disasters targeted would be those caused by natural25 and technological hazards. 
However, different hazards can interact, resulting in a domino effect — e.g., environmental 
degradation increasing the impact of floodi ng, bringing on epidemics. A multi-hazard 
approach should therefore be adopted as appropria te, since it can lead to  greater resilience to 
other types of disaster as well. While acknow ledging that disasters can exacerbate existing 
tensions and instability, the st rategy would not address man-made  disasters such as conflict 
and war.26 Consideration would be given to both sl ow- and rapid-onset di sasters; to large-
scale as well as localised but frequently occurring disasters su ch as landslides, flash floods, 
fires, storms, outbreaks of huma n and animal diseases and plan t pests, bearing in mind that 
they may require different approaches. 
The strategy would combine support for the integr ation of DRR in EU external action and in 
developing countries' strategi es, and targeted DRR action wh ich can usefully complement 
integration efforts with great immediate impact. Examples incl ude key DRR investment with 
good replication potential, such as specific DRR programmes or regional early warning 
systems. The regional dimension is crucial si nce disasters do not stop at borders. The EU 
would use its presence and experience at re gional level to support action that is more 
effectively taken at regional level in line with  the principles of comparative advantage and 
subsidiarity. 
                                                                                                                                                         
response in third countries (COM(2005)153), the joint High Representative and Commission paper on 
Climate and international security (S113/08) and the Commission Staff Working Paper on Disaster 
Preparedness and Prevention (2003).  
23 OECD/DAC list of ODA recipients. 
24 To be further identified through risk analysis at  the relevant levels and resulting vulnerabilities and 
specific needs. 
25 Biological, geophysical or hydro-meteorological. 
26 In such situations, linking DRR to crisis prevention and response efforts will be important. 
 
EN 9   EN 5.2.2. Implementation priorities 
The EU should support the full implementation of the strategy making use of its wide 
experience with DRR. However, it  is suggested that a quick star t should be made in the below 
areas where the EU has a comparative advantage:  
• Political dialogue on DRR . The EU should launch a political dialogue on DRR 
with all developing regions and countries in existing fora, including in support of 
advancing climate change negotiations  on a UNFCCC post-2012 arrangement. 
The EU should further aim for a coordina ted presence at the 2nd Global Platform 
for DRR in June 2009.  
• Regional Action Plans on DRR.  The EU should support the development and 
implementation of DRR action plans in di saster-prone regions. These could be 
implemented partly by up-scaling exis ting EU DRR projects and programmes, 
building on developing count ries’ strategies and prio rities. They should also 
complement and support adaptation initiativ es such as the GCCA . It is suggested 
to start with an Action Plan for the Caribbean to support inter alia  the 
implementation of the Comprehensiv e Disaster Management Strategy27. Others 
should follow, e.g. for Latin America, Sout h-East Asia, Africa and the Pacific.  
• Integration of DRR into EU and de veloping country policies and planning and 
support for key national DRR investment. The EU should integrate DRR into EU 
development cooperation, humanitarian re sponse and recovery efforts, making 
full use of best integra tion practice and tools deve loped by the Commission and 
individual Member States, including those for the environment and climate 
change and civil protection authorities. The Commission should use the next mid-
term review of country and regional stra tegy papers as an entry point for having 
DRR considerations fully integrated in its development assistance, where 
appropriate, in the next progr amming cycle starting in 2012.  
• The EU should also support the integr ation of DRR into developing countries’ 
national policies and planni ng, including relevant sector  policies and strategies, 
particularly Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), disaster-sensitive 
sectors, and relevant cross-cutting issu es. The EU should coordinate its support 
for key DRR investment already identif ied and planned for in such national 
frameworks. 
To take forward the political dialogue on DRR,  oversee the implementation of the strategy 
and foster coordination and alignment of EU support, the Commission should set up an EU 
DRR Steering Group (SG) including the Commission and EU Member States.  
5.2.3. Funding instruments 
The EU should implement the strategy using th e full range of fundi ng instruments at its 
disposal and in the context of the EU target  of raising Official Development Assistance 
                                                 
27 The Eastern Caribbean countries ar e among the 10 most disaster-prone countries in the world. An 
Action Plan for the Caribbean should also be closel y linked to the implementation of the Cariforum–EU 
Declaration on Climate Cha nge and Energy (05/08).  
 
EN 10   EN (ODA) to 0.56% of GNP by 201028. Indeed, several Member States and the Commission29 are 
currently scaling up funding for DRR within existing financial frameworks. Although the 
communication does not have any additional financial implications and the actions will be financed within the existi ng financial framework 2007-20013, it provides the framework for 
ensuring that existing instruments are complement ary and are used to best effect, including 
better inter-linking of DRR f unding from development and humanitarian instruments.  
As to the EC, its main funding sources incl ude the European Development Fund (EDF) and 
instruments of the EC general budget
30. Individual DRR allocations are further articulated in 
Country and Regional Strategy Papers for all developing regions, in tra-ACP programmes, 
Drought Preparedness and DIPECHO programmes in  the humanitarian aid context, and in 
thematic programmes on food security and e nvironment/natural resources. For example, €180 
million has been proposed to be allocated to DRR under 10th EDF intra-ACP resources.31 The 
Commission should explore a be tter integrated articulatio n between the above. The 7th 
Research Framework Programme (FP7) and the Commission’s Joint Research Centre also 
support a substantial amount of  hazard- and disaster-relat ed research and tools.  
The EU should also explore ways of mob ilising innovative funding, additional to existing 
ODA, for the benefit of both DRR and clim ate change adaptation. The Global Climate 
Financing Mechanism, curren tly being developed by the Co mmission, could be one such 
instrument. 
6. I MPACT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  
Given its policy nature, it is extremely diffi cult to quantify the im pacts the three above-
mentioned options will have on developing countries  and their capacity to cope with disasters. 
In particular, factors such as the non-binding nature of policy; the multitude of actors working on disaster risk reduction, incl uding non-EU donors; a lack of ow nership of agreed policy and 
relevant DRR indicators contri bute to the difficulty of quantif ying and clearly attributing any 
impact to any discrete po licy interventions, whether at EC or EU level.  
However, it is possible to assess and differen tiate, at a more generic level, the possible 
impacts the three policy options may have and to  identify barriers and enabling environments. 
6.1. Political impact 
Strong political commitment both on the part of pa rtner countries, at national and local level, 
and donors and well rooted engagement of non-s tate actors and vulnera ble groups is key to 
achieving visibility for DRR and advancing DRR issues at all levels. Developing countries 
should be supported to take the lead on  DRR and implement the Hyogo Framework.  
A ‘no policy change’ scenario wo uld do little to increase the policy profile of DRR either 
within the EC/EU or in developing countries. This  is due to the current non-strategic focus of 
both Commission and EU Member States assist ance, which is mainly support for individual 
                                                
 
28 Target reconfirmed in Doha 2008. 
29 Commitments in 2006 : €39.95 million, and in 2007: €65.06 million, from Dipecho, Greater Horn of 
Africa and EDF resources. 
30 Instruments for: i) development cooperation, ii) humanitarian aid, iii) stability, iv) European 
Neighbourhood and Partnership. 
31 Multi-annual intra-ACP programme to  be adopted in December 2008. 
 
EN 11   EN programmes and projects. The only Member State that has develope d a DRR strategy so far is 
the UK. Political impact would thus remain low for this option. 
The option of an EC strategy would provide the framework for stre ngthening DRR dialogue 
between the Commission and partner countries, in  particular when developing, evaluating and 
revising Country and Regional Strategy Papers. This could indeed strengthen the policy 
profile of DRR and make it a more prioritised is sue for developing countries. It would still be 
an incomplete approach, however, since it w ould be done in isolati on by the EC and would 
therefore still have only limited political impact. 
An EU Strategy would fully support an EU advo cacy role, both internally  and externally, to 
increase the visibility of, a nd demonstrate the need for and benefits of DRR. A joint EU 
message, where everybody would be  speaking the same language, would provide the critical 
mass needed to place DRR firmly on the age nda with developing co untries and help to 
remediate a lack of political commitment. The impact could be medium to high for this option. 
6.2. Economic impact 
Disaster can have enormous economic impacts on  developing countries, in  particular the least 
developed countries, depriving them of resources needed to escape poverty. For donors, 
investing in DRR is likely to l ead to lesser costs with regard to humanitarian aid, recovery and 
reconstruction in the aftermaths  of disasters since economic lo sses can be mitigated through 
DRR policies and action. Furthermore, making sure  that development investment is disaster 
resilient from the very start ensu res that such investment is sustainable and cost-effective. In 
short, evidence shows that investment in DRR pays off. 
A ‘no policy change’ scenario would basically continue to support one-off DRR efforts that 
would mitigate the risk of economic losses, for example through investing in disaster-resilient 
infrastructure, which can have good local benef its in terms of reduced economic losses and 
impact. However, the macro-economic impacts of disasters can be such that whole countries 
and regions may suffer for considerable time. Such scale impacts cannot be addressed solely 
on a programme/project basis, wh ich indicates the limits of this option and the need for more 
strategic solutions. 
An EC strategy could be much more instrume ntal in reducing advers e economic impacts in 
developing countries, by combin ing strategic targeted interven tions with integration of DRR 
into overall EC development policies and pla nning as a main route to strengthening the 
resilience and sustainability of development efforts. However, to be able to support 
developing countries addressi ng macro-economic impacts of large scale disasters, the 
Commission cannot and should not  be working on its own.  
An EU strategy would allow the EU to have a more coordinated approach in a number of 
areas, including integration, making use of  both Commission and EU Member States 
experiences and tools to help prevent and m itigate economic losses in developing countries 
and loss of donor investment. Well-coordinated ac tion is more effective,  more strategic and 
more anticipatory. This will be  particularly important in c onnection with scaling up aid for 
DRR. 
 
EN 12   EN 6.3. Social impact 
Disasters triggered by natural ha zards cost lives, ruin livelihoods  and can trigger subsequent 
health disasters such as outbreaks of cholera and diarrhoea. Vulnerability to disasters is also 
increased through poverty, lack of social and fina ncial safety-nets, poor health and disability. 
On the other hand, investing in public awaren ess raising campaigns and training programmes 
helps inform people about the risk they may face and about possible options and measures 
they can take to reduce vulnera bility and better prepare th emselves — and if they are 
motivated to act, disasters can  be reduced substantially.  
Once again, a ‘no policy change’ scenario can have  local benefits in terms of raised awareness 
through specific programmes and projects. But in order to address and mitigate the whole 
range of negative social impacts due to disaster s, a more strategic and holistic approach is 
called for. 
An EC strategy could be more coordinated and he lp integrate DRR in relevant sector policies, 
thereby limiting both social and economic impacts,  while contributing to a culture of safety 
and resilience at all levels. But again, we woul d have the EC acting on its own with limited 
results and a risk of both duplicati on of efforts and significant gaps. 
An EU strategy would make use of the EU’s co llective experience and instruments, while at 
the same time ensure policy coherence with closely related policy areas such as poverty 
reduction, gender, health and education in order to minimise social impacts of disasters on 
developing countries. Building for exampl e on ongoing preparedness programmes, the EU 
strategy could be a suitable framework for s caling up EU initiatives and programmes in a 
coordinated and effective way. 
6.4. Environmental impact 
Environmental impacts following disasters can be  significant and even irreversible. Also, 
vulnerability to natural hazards is increased  in many ways, for example through poor natural 
resources management, environmental degr adation and increasing climate change.  
A ‘no policy change’ scenario of DRR programme s and projects would again be mostly local, 
reactive and non-strategic. This may not be th e best way to address linkages to increasing 
climate change, which is global and need s a strategic, anticipatory approach. 
An EC strategy would be more suited to addr essing these kinds of ch allenges and enable 
important linkages to Commission-led EU initiatives such as the Global Climate Change Alliance to made and acted upon. 
An EU Strategy would also commit both the Co mmission and Member States to work more 
closely and collaboratively with important DRR/environment interfaces such as climate 
change and should contribute to the development of policies for adapting to climate change 
and measures to be decided under the UNFCCC post-2012 arrangement.  
7. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
In line with the guidelines for impact assessments, the criteria used to evaluate the three 
options outlined in section 6 were effectiveness (the extent to which options can be expected 
to achieve the objectives  of the proposal), efficiency (the extent to which objectives can be 
 
EN 13   EN achieved for a given level of resources/at least cost), and consistency (the extent to which 
options are likely to limit trade-offs across th e economic, social, and environmental domain). 
While each of the policy options could have be nefits with regard to DRR in developing 
countries, the Commission prefers the third option, an EU strategy,  since it is the only option 
that would contribute substantially to the objectives identified in section 4.  
The desirability of action at EU level is explained by the following factors: 
• The European Consensus on Development and the European Consensus on 
Humanitarian Aid both commit the EU to  progress on EU policy and action on 
DRR. An EU strategy will foster joint und erstanding of priorities and areas where 
EU instruments can obtain the greatest impact. 
• The EU is the largest aid donor, but still needs to make progress with regard to 
effectiveness, efficiency and lower trans action costs. Closer EU collaboration on a 
common DRR framework will contribute to this and constitutes good policy and practice; collective EU action will be more efficient than actions taken by 
individual Member States and actions will better complement each other. 
• Making full strategic use of the various strengths of Commission and the Member 
States with regard to DRR is fully in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid effectiveness and the EU Code of Conduct and Division of Labour. 
• EU partner countries will benefit from  more donor coordination (dealing with 
fewer donors, more consistent messages)  and possibly more significant support 
for DRR, given current up-scaling of  funding and less duplication and/or 
fragmentation of aid. 
8. O
RGANISATION OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The proposed EU DRR Steering Group should dr ive the monitoring and evaluation process 
for the proposed strategy and establish approp riate timelines. Care should be taken not to 
duplicate existing institutional st ructures dealing with clos ely connected and overlapping 
issues such as climate change adaptation. Two types of complementary monitoring and 
evaluation mechanisms could be proposed.  
• A. Multiannual progress reports on the implementation of the strategy based on 
contributions by the Commission and the Member States detailing support for 
DRR in developing countries and progre ss with integrating DRR in bilateral 
development programming. This would in clude the development of relevant 
progress and performance indicators. 
• B. Occasional multi-stakeholder conferences to publicise progress on the 
implementation of the Strategy, pool expe riences and lessons learnt and obtain 
direct feedback on implementation.