Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Management and consequences of natural disasters: the role of European structural policy"
Date: 2003-07-03
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: aid to disaster victims, environmental risk prevention, natural disaster, structural policy

C 256/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

Recommendation 27

Annex III

With regard to Annex III, the CoR recommends that road signing should in all cases be readily understandable and
self-explanatory; it must at all events be agreed, on a uniform basis, throughout Europe and it should not encumber
tunnels.

Brussels, 3 July 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Management and consequences of natural
disasters: the role of European structural policy’

(2003/C 256/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau on 19 November 2002, in accordance with the fifth paragraph
of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on the
Management and consequences of natural disasters: the role of European structural policy, and to instruct
the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (as lead Commission) and the Commission for Sustainable
Development to undertake the preparatory work;

having regard to the supplementary opinion of the Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur:
Mr Gottardo, Member of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Council (IT-EPP)), DI CdR 12/2003;

having regard to its opinion of 14 January 1999 on the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) (CdR 266/98 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion of 14 November 2001 on the Second report on economic and social
cohesion (CdR 74/2001 fin) (2);

having regard to its opinion of 15 February 2001 on The structure and goals of European regional policy
in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate (CdR 157/2000 fin) (3);

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 (4) laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds;

having regard to the Second report on economic and social cohesion of 31 January 2001 (COM(2001)
24 final) and its opinion thereon (CdR 74/2001 fin) (2);

(1) OJ C 93 of 6.4. 1999, p. 36.
(2) OJ C 107 of 3.5.2002, p. 27.
(3) OJ C 148 of 18.5.2001, p. 25.
(4) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 7.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/75

Having regard to the First progress report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2002) 46 final) and its
opinion thereon (CdR 101/2002 fin) (1);

having regard to the opinion (CdR 388/2002 fin) of 9 April 2003 on Territorial Cohesion (rapporteur:
Mr Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, President of the Autonomous Community of Murcia (ES-EPP);

having regard to the open partial agreement on the prevention of, protection against, and organisation of
relief in major disasters (EUR-OPA programme, run by the Council of Europe), with particular reference
to the protection of cultural assets in earthquake zones;

having regard to the Council Decision of 23 October 2001 (2) establishing a Community mechanism to
facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions;

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2012/2002 (3) establishing the European Union Solidarity
Fund;

having regard to the Environment DG’s documents relating to the consultation process launched by the
European Commission on civil protection: improvement of public awareness and safety in the face of
natural and man-made hazards, with a view to the future adoption of a communication on the subject;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy on 30 April
2003 (CdR 104/2003 rev.), rapporteurs: Ms Maria Rita Lorenzetti, President of the Umbria Region (IT-
PES), and Mr Stanislaw Tillich, Minister of State for Federal and European Affairs and Head of the
Chancellery Office, Free State of Saxony (DE-EPP).

Whereas:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

the preamble to the Treaty on European Union includes the express desire to strengthen solidarity
between peoples and to promote economic and social progress for the people of the Member States;

exceptional natural occurrences and technological accidents often have very serious consequences
in terms of material damage and personal injury, and the European regions where they occur are
often densely populated and include urban centres of great cultural and productive value;

the production and transport processes used by modern European industrial society carry a high
accident risk, particularly in the event of exceptional natural occurrences;

the risk of exceptional natural phenomena occurring is higher in some regions than in others, and
this makes solidarity between regions especially important;

the serious damage caused in this way often results in a significant deterioration in the economic
and social situation and a consequent slowdown in development;

experience suggests that exceptional occurrences caused by climate factors are increasingly frequent
and intense, causing large-scale injury to individuals and serious damage to property and the
environment;

preventive measures designed to reduce the damage caused by exceptional natural phenomena and
technological accidents are in principle less costly than the necessary outlay on subsequent rebuilding
work;

(1) OJ C 66 of 9.3.2003, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 297 of 15.11.2001, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 311 of 14.11.2002, p. 3.

C 256/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

8)

Council Regulation No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund as the
emergency instrument for intervention in the event of disasters, states that ‘Community action
should not relieve third parties of their responsibility who, under the ’polluter-pays’ principle, are
liable in the first instance for the damage caused by them, or discourage preventive measures at both
Member State and Community level’;

9)

it is extremely difficult to distinguish between major damage caused by exceptional natural
occurrences and major environmental damage caused by other events,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 50th plenary session on 2 and 3 July 2003 (meeting of
3 July).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

on both sides of borders to become acquainted and to
overcome language barriers, further promoting the European
integration process. The various strands of the Community
INTERREG initiative make an invaluable contribution in this
respect;

1.1.
considers it essential to deal with preventive measures,
disaster management and assistance separately, and to assess
the role of the European funds in this context;

1.2.
in the context of the present opinion, defines disasters
as major injury to individuals and serious damage to property
and the environment caused by exceptional natural occur-
rences or technological accidents; this opinion will not con-
sider disasters caused by deliberate intent;

1.3.
notes with interest the scientific work carried out
by the Community research centre on forecasting natural
disasters;

welcomes the fact that the Structural Funds include
1.9.
measures for disaster prevention and for the management of
natural disasters, while regretting that it is impossible to
redistribute resources between the
furthermore,
cofinancing often hinders the necessary transfers, owing to the
diverse sources of funding;

funds;

1.10.
notes with concern that during the current period of
support, only areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 can
benefit from the Community support earmarked for disaster
management under the Structural Funds;

1.4.
welcomes the establishment of the Solidarity Fund;
nevertheless notes the insufficient degree of coordination
between that fund and the Structural Funds and the consequent
loss of synergy;

1.11.
notes, in addition, that under the current Structural
Fund set-up, areas at risk are obliged to divert large sums from
other potential
to
preventive measures; this inequality weakens the objective of
territorial cohesion and fair and balanced development;

investments in economic development

1.5.
notes and regrets in particular the fact that, to date, the
European Commission’s main approach to managing the
Solidarity Fund allows only for the temporary restoration of
infrastructure rather than measures for definitive rebuilding;

1.12.
stresses that the public and the business world have a
vital contribution to make to prevention and emergency
measures and that it is therefore necessary to work constantly
to raise awareness.

in principle, welcomes the Council decision estab-
1.6.
lishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced coop-
eration in civil protection assistance interventions (1);

1.7.
nevertheless stresses that the regions and munici-
palities, as the regional and local authorities responsible in the
context of decentralised coordination, should play a central
role in disaster prevention and management;

1.8.
welcomes the many bilateral agreements offering
assistance, as they enable emergency services and volunteers

(1) Decision No. 2001/792/EC

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

Disaster prevention

The Committee of the Regions

2.1.
calls for a risk analysis applying Community standards,
to outline all the types and combinations of risk for the various
areas. More specifically, risk assessments should be conducted
for earthquakes, volcanic activity, floods, torrential rainfall,

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/77

landslides or mudflows, forest fires,
industrial and mining
plants and land and shipping accidents that occur during the
authorised transport of hazardous materials. The analysis
should be conducted in conjunction with the municipalities,
regions and competent national bodies, and the results should
then be made available to the Member States. It is up to the
Commission to propose harmonised procedures to ensure the
comparability of the analysis results. The risk analysis must
take into account factors such as risk (probability of an event
occurring on a certain scale; this is calculated by studying the
area concerned and conducting a risk analysis); vulnerability
(the susceptibility of a system to damage; a vulnerability
study is needed to assess the potential danger to buildings,
infrastructure,
industrial plant and urban neighbourhoods,
especially historic town centres, in the event of an emergency);
and exposure (the quantity of objects, buildings, infrastructure,
enterprises and people at risk);

2.2.
calls for Europe-wide risk categories to be introduced
for the areas that have undergone a risk analysis in order to
define disaster prevention measures that are tailor-made and
graded;

calls for the risk analysis to be translated into the

2.3.
following measures:

— establishing a network of tools to identify potential risks,
in conjunction with the national civil protection network;

— extending the scientific assessment to all areas deemed to

be at risk;

— introducing coordination procedures for all competent

bodies;

— developing partnerships between regions with similar
disaster risks in order to exchange know-how on emerg-
ency management that may be of long-term benefit to
countless people;

2.4.
calls for risk analysis to be considered binding in
regional management. Risk analysis should be followed up
with a list of measures designed to reduce risk. Countries with
vulnerable cross-border areas have a duty to take steps to
coordinate regional management;

2.5.
considers it important to step up and promote cooper-
ation in general between areas that are subject to similar risks
(such as vulnerability to earthquakes) and in particular between
neighbouring areas with similar geographical risks (such as
river flooding or hydrogeological instability). This also applies
to cross-border cooperation in the context of risk analysis and
prevention;

2.6.
calls on the Commission, the European Parliament and
the Council to assess the need to evaluate the safety of public
buildings, cultural assets, industrial plants and other buildings
of a given size. To this end, a codified procedure for safety
evaluation (SE) may be useful. The use of Community resources
should in principle be subject to a prior evaluation of this
kind;

calls for the introduction of joint warning and com-
2.7.
for
munication systems, especially for weather forecasts,
monitoring earthquake and volcanic activity and for communi-
cations in the event of an emergency; as individual regions or
Member States may not be in a position to manage such
systems on their own, structured cooperation between national
and European authorities should be encouraged, to enable a
standardised exchange of data and, whenever possible, effective
advance warning of natural disasters, giving time to react. The
Committee would recommend setting up a European agency
for this purpose;

2.8.
calls for regional civil protection centres to be set up
in every area or region at risk. These centres would collect and
process data from monitoring networks, conduct training,
studies and research, and carry out emergency activities.
Responsibility would remain with the regions. As regards
studies and research, documentary and photographic material
should be compiled regarding similar events that occurred in
past years or centuries, and contacts and relations should be
fostered between European universities and specialist institutes;

2.9.
calls for greater coherence between efforts made in the
sphere of civil protection and those made in the military
environment;

2.10.
urges the Commission to assess the interoperability
of the communication facilities and systems available in the
Member States in the event of a disaster and to put forward
proposals for their harmonisation;

2.11.
for all levels of management;

calls for more to be done to promote language skills

2.12.
calls for more to be done in the context of the
innovative measures to promote the exchange of good practice
and networking among managers responsible for civil protec-
tion;

2.13.
calls for an exchange of good practice and a proper
division of civil protection responsibilities between local,
regional and national levels, drawing on the scientific expertise
of European universities and specialist research institutes;

C 256/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

In the event of a disaster

Financing

The Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

calls for the minimum threshold for damages pro-
2.14.
vided by the EU Solidarity Fund to be reduced to EUR
1 billion, as the European Commission originally proposed.
Furthermore, appropriations earmarked under the fund should
be subject to the additionality principle. The decision-making
process and payment procedures must be speeded up so that
the funds can be paid as soon as a disaster occurs and can be
used effectively to deal with it;

2.15.
calls for the regions to be actively and properly
involved in measures provided for under the ‘Community
mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protec-
tion assistance interventions’ (1).

Reconstruction

The Committee of the Regions

2.20.
calls for the more flexible deployment of the Structur-
al Funds for the above-mentioned measures, including the
facility to move resources between the Funds;

2.21.
darity Fund to be used for reconstruction work;

proposes allowing a greater proportion of the Soli-

2.22.
believes that compliance with the risk analysis should
be a condition for eligibility for reconstruction financing.
Reconstruction measures should take account of natural
conditions (for instance the restoration of areas that are prone
to flooding) and aim to prevent or lessen the chances of further
damage from a natural or technological disasters. This may
require changes to insurance law, so as to ensure that
compensation for damages is not necessarily tied to restoring
original conditions when that would mean rebuilding without
reducing the original risk;

2.16.
calls for greater flexibility, for a limited period, in the
award of public contracts, in order to avoid the risk of delays
and the cost of European calls for tender. This is the only way
to speed up reconstruction;

2.23.
choosing the instruments to use;

believes that the regions should be more involved in

2.17.
welcomes the EIB lending facility which provides an
opportunity for optimum-condition loans, and calls in that
context for a high degree of flexibility;

2.24.
believes, in the context of the forthcoming mid-term
evaluation of the Structural Funds, that the Commission’s
guidelines for Structural Fund measures in the 2004-2006
period should give strong priority to risk prevention;

urges that it be made obligatory to take risk analysis
2.18.
into account
in reconstruction work, to avoid repeating
past mistakes. The measures implemented should apply the
sustainability principle and therefore temporary work should
be done only when technically essential;

that

believes

cultural assets deserve

2.19.
a special
approach, both for monuments of significant architectural
value and groups of minor historical buildings. Generally
speaking, but more so for minor historical buildings, recon-
struction projects should be geared towards getting structural
safety up to scratch or at least improving it, preventing
environmental pollution, using alternative energy sources and
respecting contemporary standards of living. Repair work or
rebuilding should be mindful of the historical, architectural
and typological features of the damaged buildings, with a view
to preserving our rich architectural heritage.

(1) Council Decision No. 2001/792/EC

2.25.
in conclusion, calls for the establishment of a Com-
munity initiative in the field of civil protection for preventing
and dealing with disasters, as part of the new Structural Fund
system rules for the post-2007 period, given that the EU
Solidarity Fund encourages ‘preventive measures at both
Member State and Community level’, and given that disasters
can hit rich and poor geographical areas alike, irrespective of
whether they come under a specific structural policy objective;
requests, moreover that this aid should come hand in hand
with enhanced flexibility in the application of the provisions
governing state aid to rebuild dependent economies in the
affected areas.

This initiative would facilitate the coordination of Community
action in this field, giving a clearer and more coherent
framework to the various existing instruments (national pro-
research framework pro-
grammes,
gramme and civil protection) and complementing the immedi-
ate assistance objective set by the Solidarity Fund.

innovative measures,

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/79

The new Community initiative should be independent of the
Structural Fund objectives and should have funding on a
par with the Community’s INTERREG initiative. It should

encourage regional cooperation measures, in accordance with
the principle that prevention is better than a cure.

Brussels, 3 July 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fourth Report from the Commission on the
application of Directive 89/553/EEC “Television Without Frontiers”’

(2003/C 256/13)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Fourth Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Application of
Directive 89/552/EEC ‘Television Without Frontiers’ (COM(2002) 778 final) of 6 January 2003;

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 6 January 2003 to consult it on this
subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 6 February 2002 to instruct its Commission for Culture and
Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

having regard to the Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 30 June 1997;

having regard to the Third report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the
Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 89/552/EEC ‘Television Without
Frontiers’;

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the third report of the Commission to the
council, the European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive
89/552/EEC ‘Television Without Frontiers’;

having regard to the Fifth Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the application of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive 89/552/EEC ‘Television Without
Frontiers’, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, for the period 1999-2000, COM(2002) 612 final of
8 November 2002;

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the
competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national
frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human
dignity;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain legal aspects relating to
cinematographic and other audiovisual works, COM(2001) 534 final of 26 September 2001;