Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Improving the Community civil protection mechanism — A response to natural disasters
Date: 2008-03-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: civil defence, environmental liability, environmental risk prevention, natural disaster

C 204/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Improving the Community civil
protection mechanism — A response to natural disasters

(2008/C 204/15)

On 25 September 2007, the European Economic and Social Committee, under Rule 29A of the imple-
menting provisions of the Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an additional opinion on

Improving the Community civil protection mechanism — A response to natural 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 26 February 2008. The rapporteur was
Ms Sánchez Miguel.

At its 443rd plenary session, held on 12 and 13 March 2008 (meeting of 13 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The EESC, as the representative of civil society, believes
1.1
that it should contribute to the EU debate on the handling of
natural disasters, taking an approach geared towards prevention,
intervention and the assumption of responsibility in the event
of disasters caused by human acts or omissions.

1.2
In this context, it should be borne in mind that current
European legislation contains sufficient provision for preventing
or mitigating the potential effects of some natural disasters. It
would therefore be useful to again urge the competent authori-
ties to monitor the application of this legislation throughout the
EU. The EESC believes that the implementation of the WFD and
related legislation, particularly the Flood Directive, would alle-
viate these effects which — while not preventable — could be
reduced by setting up the flood management plans included in
river basin plans. Legislation to prevent forest fires could have a
similar effect.

1.3
An important issue is the link between disaster preven-
tion and training and education, and the need to set up a
suitable information system so that professionals and the public
are aware of the methods of response to incidents that might
occur in an area. The EESC therefore welcomes the system of
inter-regional civil protection training centres set up by the
European Commission.

1.4. With regard to civil protection,
the EESC wishes to
congratulate the Commission for swiftly setting up a European
solidarity system which is not only interregional but interna-
tional, and has its own resources enabling it to act efficiently
both in response to disasters and in rehabilitating affected areas.
The new Article 176 C of the Lisbon Treaty strengthens the
objectives that the European Parliament and the Council had set
in this respect.

of the perpetrators of certain disasters, such as arson attacks.
The EESC considers that better implementation of national
provisions and information on the consequences of non-compli-
ance with preventive legislation or of harmful acts by both citi-
zens and the competent authorities could help to alleviate the
effects of natural disasters.

2. Introduction

2.1
Disasters are occurring with increasing frequency, not
only within the borders of the EU but throughout the world;
some are caused by natural phenomena such as floods, earth-
quakes, fires, etc., while others are due to terrorist acts which
spread fear among civilians. In both cases, human activity is to
some degree responsible, whether directly or indirectly, although
the degrees of intentionality cannot be compared.

2.2
The EU has pledged to take preventive action in response
to climate change, not just by implementing the commitments
made in the Kyoto Protocol, but also through a number of deci-
sions aimed at preserving land, water and air. This initiative is
geared towards prevention; it could help not only to maintain
and regenerate our land, seas and atmosphere, but also to
encourage action to be taken in other countries. In addition, the
Commission is conducting preparatory work regarding the
development of a European integrated approach to the preven-
tion of natural disasters by the end of 2008.

In addition to these preventive measures, the EU has set
2.3
up a Community system for assistance in the event of any
disaster that occurs within its borders. It is a mutual aid system
intended not only for the EU countries, where it has been put
into operation on numerous occasions, but also for disasters in
the Indian Ocean, South America, etc.

Lastly, the EESC believes that the environmental liability
1.5.
system should be applied as set down in the Directive on Envir-
onmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying
of environmental damage, so as to clearly establish the liability

2.4
It is important to clarify the complementarities between
disaster intervention and humanitarian aid. Both instruments
have largely the same primary objective of alleviating the impact
of disasters and other events on the population. Disaster inter-
vention falls within the domain of civil protection, which also

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/67

helps to reduce the impacts of disasters on the environment and
property be it within or outside the EU, calling upon resources
and teams from the EU Member States. Humanitarian aid, on
the other hand, is active in specific third countries and involves
NGOs and other humanitarian bodies. Both instruments coop-
erate with UN agencies.

3.4
Prevention is also connected to training and information,
not only for the members of the civil protection teams but for
the public as a whole, in order to make the intervention more
effective in the event of a natural disaster. Promotion and aware-
ness of environmental policies should be increased in all
Member States, and these policies should be taught in schools,
not just in universities.

2.5
It should be noted that the disaster fund set up in the
wake of the severe flooding in the Elbe basin has helped to
improve the interventions carried out in the EU. Equally impor-
tant is the Civil Protection Mechanism (1) created in 2001 and
later reformed (2) in order to provide a rapid response to disas-
ters that could befall the Member States or third countries.

3.5 Flood prevention measures

3. Prevention measures

3.1
Prevention is an essential factor in the protection and
conservation of the environment, and in avoiding harm to civi-
lians. The aim is to use natural resources in a sustainable way.
Predictions about the wide scale decline and loss of biodiversity
have come true, to an extent that surpasses even the most pessi-
mistic forecasts. When we add human — often deliberate —
intervention to this equation, we find ourselves confronted
today by recurring disasters which, though natural, are not
normal, owing to their frequency and above all the scale of their
impact.

The prevention measures which will be mentioned in
3.2
this opinion are those covered by existing legislation– in other
words, they should have been implemented and monitored by
the competent authorities in each Member State. Generally
speaking, some disasters can be avoided, or minimised, and it
can therefore be concluded that there should be similar condi-
tions for environmental protection throughout
the EU, by
means of compliance with the regulations in force.

One of

3.2.1
the legislative measures which has had the
greatest impact on preventing natural disasters relates to pollu-
tion of the seas and oceans by hydrocarbons. This has been
achieved by introducing not only certain transport conditions
(double hull vessels) but also the maritime measures contained
in the Erika I and II packages, which have helped to minimise
their impact.

3.3
Environmental research is linked to the issue of preven-
tion, and the EESC has already called for better, greater coordi-
nation between research and environmental programmes (3), so
that some research funds can be earmarked for practical envir-
onmental research.

(1) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom.
(2) Previously, there was an action programme in the field of civil protec-
tion, established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9.12.1999, and
reformed by Council Regulation 2005/52 of 6.04.2005. On 8
November 2007, the Council Decision establishing a Community civil
protection mechanism (recast) was adopted.

(3) Opinion CESE 578/2003, OJ C 208 of 3.9.2003, pp. 16-22.

3.5.1
The first area that will be covered here is water. Water
is often involved in natural disasters, not only through floods,
tsunamis or other marine phenomena, but also because of its
scarcity (4), which can wreak significant change, such as the
desertification of large areas of southern Europe.

3.5.2
There has always been something missing from the
Water Framework Directive (5): the fixing of an objective on
prevention, protection and preparedness in relation to floods.
Considering the high number of disasters that have occurred in
under a decade and their many victims, the Commission put
forward a Communication and a proposal for a Directive (6) to
regulate the assessment and management of
flooding risks,
proposing an analysis of the situation and future risks, and a
concerted, EU-wide action and prevention plan.

3.5.3
Floods are on the increase in the EU for two main
reasons: firstly, it is now generally believed that climate change
has an impact on the intensity and frequency of floods all over
Europe (7), partly due to irregular torrential rains and potentially
higher sea levels; secondly, human activity, such as construction
work in rivers and projects to divert and channel the course of
rivers and other activities which seal the soil, and thereby reduce
the natural capacity of nature to store excessive amounts of
water during a flood event without measures to assess and
redress their environmental impact. The risks are also on the
floods cause is
increase in the sense that
increasing as more and more settlement is taking place in areas
of high flood risk.

the damage that

In line with its earlier position (8), the EESC considers
3.5.4
that the measures set down in the Directive on the assessment
flood risks should be carried out. The
and management of

(4) COM(2007) 414 final — Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council — Addressing the challenge of
water scarcity and droughts in the European Union.

(5) OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p 72 et seq.
(6) Communication on Flood risk management — Flood prevention,
protection and mitigation. COM(2004) 472 final, OJ C 221 of
8.9.2005, p. 35.
Proposal for a Directive on the assessment and management of flood
risk COM(2006) 15 final of 18.1.2006.
Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23.10.2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, OJ C
195 of 18.08.2006, p. 37.

(7) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Working Group

II Report ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’.

(8) See note 6.

C 204/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

Commission's acceptance of the EESC's proposal (in its opinion
on the 2004 communication)
to incorporate measures on
flooding into the WFD implementation helps to promote the
inclusion of flood management plans into river basin manage-
ment plans, and thus ensure that
the necessary action is
planned for the entire basin and effective measures are taken by
all competent authorities (local, state and transnational).

3.5.5
The EESC also reiterates that a preliminary flood risk
assessment should be conducted for each basin, evaluating
which sections are likely to flood, so that an intervention map
can be drawn up to facilitate preventive measures, particularly
with regard to the reforestation and afforestation of mountain
areas, protection of wetlands and related ecosystems. In this
context,
it is important for civil society to be informed and
involved, as this will help to make precautionary measures
easier.

3.6 Fire prevention measures

Prevention policies must be stepped up. Although
3.6.1
prevention is essentially the responsibility of the Member States,
the Community can help them to prevent and reduce the
impact of natural disasters, including forest fires.

3.6.2
The Community should continue considering measures
ranging from public awareness-raising to land management.
Such measures can also have other positive effects, such as
helping to adapt to climate change.

3.6.3
An integrated approach should be taken, bearing in
mind the ways in which different sectors interact. Urban devel-
opment affecting areas traditionally devoted to forestry does not
only increase the risk of
therefore, environmental
fire and,
destruction, but may also mean that consideration should be
given to the evacuation of inhabitants rather than the loss of
forests.

The various EU financial

3.6.4
instruments available in
the Member States' prevention efforts should be
support of
revised and updated, in order not only to bring them into line
with the current situation, but also to find synergies between
the different instruments with a view to protecting lives and the
environment, and cultural heritage more effectively. Where
Community funds are granted for recovering from forest fires or
for afforestation and reforestation, Member States should be
required to demonstrate that sound fire prevention measures
will be implemented.

3.6.5
Likewise, the Commission should continue promoting
the exchange of information and experiences between Member
States, in order to ensure that good practices are widely shared.
The differences between situations in the various countries
should be taken into account, and action in regional groups
should be stepped up.

3.6.6
provisions relating to the civil and criminal
who cause fires, whether deliberately or accidentally.

The prevention measures should also include legal
liability of those

4. Civil protection

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Lisbon Treaty (9)
4.1
introduces a new article, 176 C, whereby civil protection is
established as a means to ‘encourage cooperation between
Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems
for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made
disasters’. It is important to stress that the aim is not only to
support the Member States, but also to harmonise actions taken
internationally by the EU.

4.2
The framework regulating civil protection action consists
of two instruments: the Community Civil Protection Mechanism
Instrument (10). The Moni-
and the Civil Protection Financial
toring and Information Centre
the Civil Protection
for
Mechanism is based at the European Commission and operates
around the clock.
It has a database on the civil protection
services in each Member State, incorporating data from military
databases, which are very useful. This centre also administers
Community programmes in the area of preparedness, including
training programmes and exercises.

Over the last

4.3
few years, experience has shown how
important the centre's coordination work is — as illustrated
recently by the fires in Greece. However, there is still room for
improvement, which is why the EESC called for an increase in
its budget so that it could have more and better resources for its
work. The Monitoring and Information Centre should become a
genuine operational centre with increased staffing to pro-
actively anticipate the development of crises, monitor their
development, organise preparedness activities, and facilitate and
coordinate EU civil protection assistance within the EU and
outside of the EU.

4.4
To achieve better preparedness for major disasters, it is
necessary to step up the EU efforts in the area of civil protection
training and exercises. This would be best achieved by devel-
oping a European Civil Protection Training Institute that would
link the national centres of expertise. Proposals for the creation
of such a structured network should urgently be examined by
the European Institutions.

4.5
Early warning systems exist for most of the main natural
hazards in Europe but the lack of such systems for tsunamis is a
significant gap. The lack of common alert systems and protocols
is also an important concern in view of the growing mobility of
citizens across Europe and third countries.

(9) OJ C 306 of 17 December 2007.
(10) Furthermore, in some Member States there are institutes to investigate
and provide information about natural disasters. These play a major
role in preventing such disasters.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/69

inter-regional,

4.6
The improvements provided for by the Commission in
2005 have helped to make the Civil Protection Mechanism
more effective in the EU, and enabled it to act as an instrument
solidarity. Consequently, no
for
effort should be spared to provide the swiftest and most effec-
tive response to disasters in all their forms. This calls for prede-
fined procedures or assistance plans which should in all cases be
tested by means of drills, and updated on the basis of experience
gained from these.

international

4.7
The plans must include satellite communications, up-to-
date maps and suitable resources to achieve satisfactory coordi-
nation. All these resources should be owned by the EU. These
plans should set a standard which will boost the image of soli-
darity and effectiveness at international level.

4.8
The recast of the Community civil protection mechanism
provides for the creation by the Member States of civil protec-
tion modules made of national resources. This would contribute
to the development of an EU rapid reaction force to major disas-
ters. Member States should urgently identify and train such
modules, in priority in the area of fire fighting. The Member
States should ensure that such modules are available for swift
deployment in case of activation of the Community mechanism.

Recent disasters have shown that despite EU solidarity,
4.9
the resources mobilised are not always adequate.
is now
urgent to undertake an analysis based on disaster scenarios to
show that
identify existing gaps. Where such assessments
certain resources are insufficiently available in the EU or that
the constitution of European reserve civil protection resources
would have advantages in terms of effectiveness and cost-effi-
ciency, the EU should develop European reserve resources.

It

Furthermore, EU assessment

4.10
teams and coordinators
must be consulted on the recovery of the affected area, as their
expertise will be useful for its rehabilitation. This will help to
prevent the speculative activity that, unfortunately, occurs after
some fires.

4.11 When it comes to action in non-EU countries, interven-
tions by the mechanism must be considered an integral part of
EU foreign policy and humanitarian aid and seen as a sign of
the EU's solidarity with the countries concerned.

4.12
Lastly, it is important to define the cooperative role that
humanitarian organisations should play in civil protection.
Operations outside the EU must be coordinated with humani-
tarian aid partners working with specific mandates, such as the
United Nations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, interna-
tional organisations and NGOs.

5. Environmental liability

5.1
It is important to note that prevention legislation has not
had the desired effect on the damage caused by natural disasters.
There have been excessive delays in setting up a legal system for

environmental
tion (12) is still only in its second draft.

liability (11) and criminal environmental

legisla-

legislation.

National
the relevant

laws in this area vary widely, and this can
5.2
there is no EU
In practice,
distort
harmonisation of environmental
liability, and there are no
generalised provisions for repairing or cleaning up areas affected
by natural disasters as this is not in the remit of EU law. More-
over, the ‘polluter pays’ principle is not applicable in many
regions of the EU.

5.3
Other factors may also come into play, e.g. certain types
of damage may affect more than one country, meaning that
different systems of
law apply. The separation of competent
authorities from local to national level is also a major problem,
as this causes conflicts when it comes to enforcing liability,
given that these authorities may also be involved in the repair.

The scope of

liability legislation, as set down in the
5.4
Directive,
focuses on prevention or repair of environmental
damage, based on laws in force in the EU and relating to biodi-
versity, water and soil pollution. which is defined to a large
extent, but not exclusively, by reference to existing Community
legislation. It is therefore important to stress that only failure to
comply with the laws in force and listed in Annex III of the
Directive should be subject to liability claims against the perpe-
trators of the damage.

5.5
The first liability scheme applies to the dangerous or
potentially dangerous occupational activities listed in Annex III
to the Directive. These are mainly agricultural or industrial activ-
ities requiring a licence under the Directive on integrated pollu-
tion prevention and control, activities which discharge heavy
metals into water or the air, installations producing dangerous
chemical substances, waste management activities (including
landfills and incinerators) and activities concerning genetically
modified organisms and micro-organisms. Under
first
scheme, the operator may be held responsible even if he is not
at fault. The second liability scheme applies to all occupational
activities other than those listed in Annex III to the Directive,
but only where there is damage, or imminent threat of damage,
to species or natural habitats protected by Community legisla-
tion. In this case, the operator will be held liable only if he is at
fault or negligent. The Directive also provides for a certain
number of exemptions from environmental liability.

this

(11) Directive on Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and

remedying of environmental damage.

(12) A first Proposal for a Regulation was made in 2001, which was with-
drawn by the Council. Later, the EESC was consulted on a new
proposal (COM(2007) 51 final — 2007/0022 COD), upholding the
Court of Justice case-law of 13 September 2005, confirmed by
another judgement of 27 October 2007, on the authority of the
Commission to legislate on environmental crimes.

C 204/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

5.6
There are two ways in which the damage may be
corrected: either the operator may take the necessary restoration
measures, in which case they will be financed directly by the
operator, or the competent authority may have the measures
implemented by a third party and recover the costs from the
perpetrator of
two
approaches is also possible in the interests of greater effective-
ness.

the damage. A combination of

the

5.7 When there is more than one party liable for
the
damage, the Directive leaves to the Member States to decide
how to apportion the costs, the two main options being either

Brussels, 13 March 2008.

joint and several
liability or apportioned liability. While this
dual system is intended to facilitate adaptation to the legal
systems of the Member States, it should nonetheless be pointed
out that determining the proportion of environmental damage
is extremely difficult, which makes this system difficult to imple-
ment in practice.

Lastly, it should be stressed that the requirement of finan-
5.8
cial security for operators subject to water, soil and biodiversity
legislation helps to make repair more effective, whilst avoiding
the negative consequences of insolvency.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally
staying third-country nationals (Own-initiative opinion)

(2008/C 204/16)

On 27 September 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure decided to draft an own-initiative opinion on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of
illegally staying third-country nationals

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February 2008. The rapporteur was
Ms Roksandić, the co-rapporteur, Mr Almeida Freire.

At its 443rd plenary session, held on 12 and 13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to 56 with seven abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

implementing the Directive proposed by the European Commis-
sion on ‘Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-
country nationals’.

1.1
The EESC expresses regret at the fact that the proposed
illegally staying
directive on ‘Sanctions against employers of
third-country nationals’ was not referred to the EESC for an
opinion, although it is stated in the introduction to the directive
that this is so. The proposed directive does not ordinarily come
under one of the areas for which consultation of the Committee
is mandatory; however the Committee believes that it is neces-
sary to consult representatives of civil society organisations in
such instances and related cases, because they concern the regu-
lation of key areas which not only fall within the domain of
freedom, security and justice, but also have an impact on
employment and social policy.

The EESC has decided on its own initiative to draw up
1.2
an opinion on this proposal for a directive. The Committee
believes that organised civil society, and especially the social
partners, has a most important role to play in shaping and

In its opinions to date (1), the Committee has highlighted
1.3
the need for simultaneous action to be taken to create opportu-
nities for legal immigration and to deal with the causes of ‘irre-
gular’ immigration.

(1) See the EESC opinion of 15.12.2004 on ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
— Study on the links between legal and illegal migration’, rapporteur
Mr Pariza Castaños (OJ C 157, 28.6.2005).
See the EESC opinion of 9.6.2005 on ‘Green paper on an EU
approach to managing economic migration’, rapporteur Mr Pariza
Castaños (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005).
See the EESC opinion of 15.12.2005 on ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague
Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for
European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice’, rappor-
teur Mr. Pariza Castaños (OJ C 65, 17.3.2006).