(2004/C58E/152) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2135/03
byRosemarieMüller(PSE)totheCommission
(19June2003)
Subject:Compulsoryinsuranceagainstdamagecausedbynaturalforces
Experiencegainedfollowingtheflooddisasterinsummer2002hashighlightedadilemmaconcerning
insuranceagainstdamagecausedbynaturalforces.Ontheonehand,inthelightoftheincreasingnumberofnaturaldisastershard-nosedprivateinsurancecompaniesaredeliberatelywithdrawingcoveragainstdamagecausedbynaturalforces,suchasstormsandflooding;ontheother,emergencyaidandprivatedonationsarereducingtheincentivetominimisetheriskofdamagebytakingprotectivemeasures.
Over-estimatesofthescaleofthedamageintheimmediatewakeofanaturaldisastermerelyaddtothis
dilemma. Unnecessarily high volumes of private donations and ad hoc state aid measures out of allproportion to real needs are the results. The consequent loss of private purchasing power and stateinvestmentresourcescausesexcessivedamagetotheeconomyanddiminishesthecredibilityofeconomicpolicy.
InitsweeklyreportNo12/2003theGermanInstituteforEconomicResearchinBerlinsuggeststhatthe
problemsoutlinedabovecouldlargelybesolvedbymeansoftheimpositionofageneralrequirementtotakeoutinsuranceagainstdamagecausedbynaturalforces.
Workableinsuranceofthiskindmightbebasedonthefollowingprovisions:
/dash Firstly,allsignificantformsofdamagecausedbynaturalforces(storms,flooding,earthquakes,etc.)
shouldbejointlyinsured.Thisarrangementwouldensureriskdiversificationandmakeforthewidestpossible range of at-risk clients, thereby increasing the level of acceptance of this new form of
insurance.
/dash Secondly,inthecaseofflooding,onlyexceptionaldamageshouldbecovered.Inareasnotgenerallyat
risk, almostevery floodwouldthus be exceptional. In at-risk areas, however, damage caused byregularfloodingwouldnotbecovered,sinceinsuchareasself-protectionmakesmoresense.
DoestheCommissionregardthisoutlineproposalforcompulsory,Europe-wideinsuranceagainstdamage
causedbynaturalforcesasworkable?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(1August2003)
TheCommissionwouldrefertheHonourableMembertoitsanswertoWrittenQuestionE-0114/03from
MrWalter(
1).
Member States are exposed to different levels of risk of natural disasters. Geographical location and
demographicorclimaticcharacteristicsmakesomeMemberStatesmorevulnerablethanotherstodifferenttypes of natural disaster (floods, earthquakes, snow avalanches, tidal waves, storms, etc.), with thefrequencyandintensityofsucheventsalsodiffering.ThismeansthatMemberStatesarenotallconcernedinthesamewaybythevarioustypesofnaturaldisasterandthedamagetheycancause.
Becauseofthesedifferences,arrangementsforremedyingthedamagecausedbynaturaldisastersaremore
satisfactorywhenimplementedatnationalorregionallevelthanatCommunitylevel.MemberStatesareinabetterpositiontoidentifywhichtypesofnaturaldisasteraffecttheirownterritoryandthustodeterminetheirneedsandtaketheappropriateaction.
AccordingtotheinformationavailabletotheCommission,mostMemberStateshavealreadytakenaction,
devisingmechanismstocompensatefordamagecausedbynaturaldisastersthatvaryaccordingtothetypeof disaster: flood, avalanche, earthquake, storm, etc. In many cases, where risk coverage for naturalC58E/136 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
disastersistechnicallypossible,theMemberStateshaveimposedcompulsoryinsurancecover.However,
therearecasesinsomeMemberStateswheretheriskissuchthatitistechnicallyverydifficultorevenimpossibletocover.
Impositionof a compulsoryinsurance system at European level does notnecessarily seem to be the
appropriateresponse,asitwouldbedifficulttotailorittothespecifictypesofnaturaldisastertowhichMemberStatesareexposed.Therewouldalsobetheproblemoftheinsurabilityofcertainrisks.
AsindicatedinRegulation(EC)No2012/2002(
2),CommunityassistanceshouldcomplementtheMember
States’owneffortsand,inlinewiththeprincipleofsubsidiarity,shouldbeconfinedtomajordisasters.ThisisthebackgroundagainstwhichCommunityactionshouldbeviewed.
ExistingfundingmechanismsundertheStructuralFunds,theCohesionFundortheEuropeanAgriculture
GuidanceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF)/dashGuaranteeSection(inthelattercase,underruraldevelopmentinparticular)mayprovideassistancetohelppreventordmitigatetheeffectsofnaturaldisasters.
OneofthemeasuresintroducedbytheCommissioninresponsetothe2002floodswastheestablishment
oftheEuropean UnionSolidarityFund(EUSF).The EUSFwascreated toprovide immediatefinancial
assistanceintheeventofamajordisasterthatwouldhelpthepeople,regionsandcountriesconcernedto
returnasfaraspossibletonormality.Interventioncantakeplaceonlytohelpfinancearrangementsformakinggoodpublicdamagenotcoveredbyinsurance.TheEUSFcannotbeutilisedtofundlong-termpreventivemeasures.
InthecontextofdisasterseligibleforEUSFassistance,thefundingofpreventivemeasuresispermissible
only in the case of operations essential for the immediate securing of preventive infrastructures andmeasuresprovidingimmediateprotectionfortheculturalheritage.TheexistenceoftheEUSFshouldnotrelieveoftheirresponsibilitythirdpartieswho,underthe‘polluterpays’principle,areliableinthefirstinstanceforthedamagecausedbythem;norshoulditdiscouragepreventivemeasuresatbothMemberState and Communitylevel. Paymentsfromthe Fund are, in principle, limited to financing measuresremedyingnon-insurabledamagesandwillberecoveredifathirdpartysubsequentlymeetsthecostofrepairingthedamage.
(1) OJC11E,15.1.2004,p.69.
(2) CouncilRegulation(EC)No2012/2002of11November2002establishingtheEuropeanUnionSolidarityFund,
OJL311,14.11.2002.
(2004/C58E/153) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2136/03
byFrancescoSperoni(NI)totheCommission
(19June2003)
Subject:Improperuseofageographicalterminafoodstuff’sname
TheLazzaronifirm,theproducersofAmarettidiSaronnobiscuits,whichbearthedistinctivenameofthe
Lombardytownwheretheywerefirstmade,isabouttotransferproductionoperationstotheIsoladelGranSassoplant,whichissomesixhundredkilometresaway,inanotherregion.
Isthesaleofaproductbearinganexplicitgeographicaldescriptionthatisinnowayconnectedtothe
actualplaceofproductionpermissibleunderEUlaw?6.3.2004EN C58E/137 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion