WRITTEN QUESTION P-2135/03 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission. Compulsory insurance against damage caused by natural forces.
Date: 2003-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, emergency aid, financial aid, fund (EU), indemnity insurance, natural disaster

C 58 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2135/03

by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Compulsory insurance against damage caused by natural forces

Experience gained following the flood disaster in summer 2002 has highlighted a dilemma concerning
insurance against damage caused by natural forces. On the one hand, in the light of the increasing number
of natural disasters hard-nosed private insurance companies are deliberately withdrawing cover against
damage caused by natural forces, such as storms and flooding; on the other, emergency aid and private
donations are reducing the incentive to minimise the risk of damage by taking protective measures.

Over-estimates of the scale of the damage in the immediate wake of a natural disaster merely add to this
dilemma. Unnecessarily high volumes of private donations and ad hoc state aid measures out of all
proportion to real needs are the results. The consequent loss of private purchasing power and state
investment resources causes excessive damage to the economy and diminishes the credibility of economic
policy.

In its weekly report No 12/2003 the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin suggests that the
problems outlined above could largely be solved by means of the imposition of a general requirement to
take out insurance against damage caused by natural forces.

Workable insurance of this kind might be based on the following provisions:

(cid:1) Firstly, all significant forms of damage caused by natural forces (storms, flooding, earthquakes, etc.)
should be jointly insured. This arrangement would ensure risk diversification and make for the widest
possible range of at-risk clients, thereby increasing the level of acceptance of this new form of
insurance.

(cid:1) Secondly, in the case of flooding, only exceptional damage should be covered. In areas not generally at
risk, almost every flood would thus be exceptional. In at-risk areas, however, damage caused by
regular flooding would not be covered, since in such areas self-protection makes more sense.

Does the Commission regard this outline proposal for compulsory, Europe-wide insurance against damage
caused by natural forces as workable?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-0114/03 from
Mr Walter (1).

location and
Member States are exposed to different levels of risk of natural disasters. Geographical
demographic or climatic characteristics make some Member States more vulnerable than others to different
types of natural disaster (floods, earthquakes, snow avalanches,
tidal waves, storms, etc.), with the
frequency and intensity of such events also differing. This means that Member States are not all concerned
in the same way by the various types of natural disaster and the damage they can cause.

Because of these differences, arrangements for remedying the damage caused by natural disasters are more
satisfactory when implemented at national or regional level than at Community level. Member States are in
a better position to identify which types of natural disaster affect their own territory and thus to determine
their needs and take the appropriate action.

According to the information available to the Commission, most Member States have already taken action,
devising mechanisms to compensate for damage caused by natural disasters that vary according to the type
In many cases, where risk coverage for natural
of disaster: flood, avalanche, earthquake, storm, etc.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/137

disasters is technically possible, the Member States have imposed compulsory insurance cover. However,
there are cases in some Member States where the risk is such that it is technically very difficult or even
impossible to cover.

Imposition of a compulsory insurance system at European level does not necessarily seem to be the
appropriate response, as it would be difficult to tailor it to the specific types of natural disaster to which
Member States are exposed. There would also be the problem of the insurability of certain risks.

As indicated in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (2), Community assistance should complement the Member
States’ own efforts and, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, should be confined to major disasters.
This is the background against which Community action should be viewed.

Existing funding mechanisms under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or the European Agriculture
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guarantee Section (in the latter case, under rural development
in particular) may provide assistance to help prevent or dmitigate the effects of natural disasters.

One of the measures introduced by the Commission in response to the 2002 floods was the establishment
of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). The EUSF was created to provide immediate financial
assistance in the event of a major disaster that would help the people, regions and countries concerned to
return as far as possible to normality. Intervention can take place only to help finance arrangements for
making good public damage not covered by insurance. The EUSF cannot be utilised to fund long-term
preventive measures.

In the context of disasters eligible for EUSF assistance, the funding of preventive measures is permissible
only in the case of operations essential for the immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and
measures providing immediate protection for the cultural heritage. The existence of the EUSF should not
relieve of their responsibility third parties who, under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, are liable in the first
instance for the damage caused by them; nor should it discourage preventive measures at both Member
State and Community level. Payments from the Fund are,
limited to financing measures
remedying non-insurable damages and will be recovered if a third party subsequently meets the cost of
repairing the damage.

in principle,

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 69.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund,

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2136/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Improper use of a geographical term in a foodstuff’s name

The Lazzaroni firm, the producers of Amaretti di Saronno biscuits, which bear the distinctive name of the
Lombardy town where they were first made, is about to transfer production operations to the Isola del
Gran Sasso plant, which is some six hundred kilometres away, in another region.

Is the sale of a product bearing an explicit geographical description that is in no way connected to the
actual place of production permissible under EU law?