Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Community approach for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters - Impact assessment {COM(2009) 82} {SEC(2009) 203}
Date: 2009-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil defence, environmental risk prevention, impact study, man-made disaster, natural disaster, research

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 202 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

A Community approach for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters  

IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2009) 82} 
{SEC(2009) 203}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 

procedural issues and External consultation with Member States and stakeholders ... 6 

Internal preparation ...................................................................................................... 6 

External consultation with Member States and stakeholders....................................... 6 

Key points emerging from the Communication with Member States.......................... 6 

Key points emerging from the consultations with stakeholders .................................. 7 

External expertise......................................................................................................... 8 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 8 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9 

3.1. 

General background: disasters, their impacts and benefits of disaster prevention ...... 9 

3.1.1.  Growing number and severity of disasters................................................................... 9 

3.1.2.  A wide range of affected actors ................................................................................. 12 

3.2. 

A fragmented approach to disaster mitigation ........................................................... 12 

3.2.1.  Current situation at EU level...................................................................................... 13 

3.2.2.  Current situation in Member States ........................................................................... 13 

3.3. 

Specific problems....................................................................................................... 14 

3.3.1.  The lack of a consistent knowledge base ................................................................... 15 

3.3.2.  Limited or non-existent links amongst the various actors and policy areas .............. 15 

3.3.3.  EU funds could better contribute to disaster prevention............................................ 16 

3.3.4.  The lack of prevention measures for specific disasters.............................................. 17 

3.4. 

3.5. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

Expected evolution of these problems ....................................................................... 17 

The grounds for EU action......................................................................................... 17 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 20 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 20 

Link the various actors and sectoral policies throughout the disaster management 
cycle ........................................................................................................................... 21 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 21 

Better target specific risks, building on existing initiatives ....................................... 21 

Options ....................................................................................................................... 21 

EN 

2 

   EN 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters................................... 21 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 22 

Improved linking between actors and sectoral policies throughout the disaster 
management cycle...................................................................................................... 23 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 23 

Better target specific risks building on existing initiatives ........................................ 24 

Impact assessment of the options............................................................................... 25 

Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters................................... 25 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 26 

6.2.1. 

Initiative on risk mapping .......................................................................................... 26 

6.2.2.  Disaster observatory................................................................................................... 28 

6.2.3.  Launch projects under the Civil Protection Financial Instrument (CPFI) for the 

development of common methodologies for data acquisition and information 
generation on disasters in the EU............................................................................... 30 

6.3. 

Improved linking of actors and sectoral policies throughout the disaster management 
cycle ........................................................................................................................... 30 

6.3.1.  Development of best practices and guidelines involving prevention aspects ............ 30 

6.3.2.  Multisectoral steering group ...................................................................................... 30 

6.4. 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 31 

6.4.1.  Specific funding ......................................................................................................... 32 

6.4.2.  Guidance on use of funds........................................................................................... 33 

6.4.3.  Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments ................................... 33 

6.5. 

Targeting specific risks and building on existing initiatives...................................... 33 

6.5.1. 

Improving the targeting of disaster prevention in existing EU instruments .............. 33 

6.5.2.  Complementing existing sectoral initiatives with other specific initiatives, such as an 
EU initiative on forest fires ........................................................................................ 34 

6.5.3.  Framework legislation on prevention......................................................................... 36 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 38 

Comparing the generic impacts of EU action and no EU action ............................... 38 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters......................................................... 38 

Link the various actors and sectoral policies ............................................................. 38 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters............................................... 39 

EN 

3 

   EN 

7.5. 

7.6. 

Target specific risks building on existing initiatives ................................................. 39 

Conclusions on the comparison ................................................................................. 39 

7.6.1.  Should the EU develop an EU strategy on disaster prevention?................................ 39 

7.6.2.  What are the available options for inclusion in the strategy? .................................... 40 

8. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 40 

EN 

4 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

Events such as the disastrous forest fires of the recent summers as well as floods and droughts 
in  different  parts  of  Europe  have  built  a  political  momentum  for  strengthening  not  only 
response  at  EU  level  but  also  prevention  and  recovery.  Furthermore,  the  European 
Parliament1  and  the  Council  have  both  called  for  urgent  work  on  disaster  prevention2.  This 
has  been  reflected  by  the  Commission  in  its  Communication  on  reinforcing  the  Union’s 
disaster  response  capacity,3  which  announced  that  there  would  be  an  initiative  on  the 
prevention of disasters towards the end of 2008. This impact assessment is intended to inform 
the Commission in view of the adoption of a Communication “A Community approach on the 
prevention of natural and man-made disasters”. This will be the first EU document addressing 
in  a  comprehensive  manner  this  area  of  potential  action  by  the  EU.  It  is  intended  to  trigger 
initial policy discussions between EU institutions and consultations of stakeholders. 

The  Communication  will  focus  on  evaluating  whether  a  more  comprehensive  prevention 
approach  could  complement  and  give  coherence  to  the  existing  sectoral  and  vertical 
approaches and reinforce the added value of Community action. It will cover natural and man-
made disasters within the EU. It will not cover conflict-related complex emergencies.  

At this early stage of policy development, the primary objective of this impact assessment is 
to  provide  the  necessary  information  to  support  a  policy  decision  on  whether  to  develop  an 
EU  strategy  on  disaster  prevention.  A  further  objective  is  to  inform  a  first  round  of  policy 
discussion between the EU institutions and stakeholders on a wide range of options that could 
be further  explored and assessed for potential inclusion in such a strategy. Thus, this report 
addresses  the  need  for  EU  action,  the  potential  added  value  of  such  action  and  includes  a 
proportionate impact assessment of a large range of options, without suggesting at this early 
stage a final decision on options to be included in the strategy. 

The European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions will be invited to provide the Commission with further input with a 
view  to  consolidating  a  Community  strategy  for  the  prevention  of  natural  and  man-made 
disasters. Stakeholders will also be invited to contribute to the development of the strategy.  

On this basis, the Commission will carry out further consultations to promote this approach 
and  if  appropriate  will  propose  to  develop  it  further,  accompanied  by  in-depth  impact 
assessments of any option selected. 

1 

2 

3 

The  European  Parliament  Resolution  on  the  "regional  impact  of  earthquakes"  adopted  on  14/11/2007 
calls  “upon  the  Commission  forthwith  to  draw  up  a  Communication  evaluating  the  hazards  posed  by 
earthquakes  and  considering  the  questions  of  prevention  and  management  (…)”.  It  calls  on  the 
“Commission to evaluate all existing preventive, management and civil protection instruments to deal 
with  natural  disasters  promoted  by  various EU  policies  (environment,  cohesion  policy,  research,  etc.) 
and  to  propose,  in  the  interests  of  simplification  and  improved  coordination,  a  centralised  prevention 
and management instrument”. 
The  June  GAERC  adopted  Council  Conclusions  urging  the  Commission  to  come  up  no  later  than 
October 2008 with a Communication on the prevention of disasters. 
COM(2008)130 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND EXTERNAL  CONSULTATION  WITH MEMBER STATES  AND 
STAKEHOLDERS 

2.1. 

Internal preparation 

Work on this impact assessment began in DG environment early in 2007 and was conducted 
with  the  assistance  of  an  inter-service  group  that  met  three  times  in  2008  bringing  together 
experts from relevant General Directorates.  

The European Environment Agency also took part in one of the meetings.  

The  work  has  also  built  on  the  results  of  two  external  independent  studies  undertaken  by 
COWI  (Denmark)  to  identify  prevention  gaps  in  existing  instruments  and  to  analyse  the 
approach  taken  by  some  Member  States  to  prevention.  In  this  context,  four  selected  case 
studies have been conducted in France, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden. The reports provided 
by the consultant are available on the Europa website4 and are based on an extensive study of 
existing publications in the area of disaster prevention. 

2.2. 

External consultation with Member States and stakeholders 

All stakeholders were invited to participate in a consultation meeting held on 14 April 2008 to 
comment on an issues paper, and the Member States were asked to provide written comments 
on the paper in May 2008. 

Three specific stakeholder meetings of experts from Member States and private organisations 
were held in May 2008 to address in detail economic aspects, forest fires, and land use/risk 
mapping issues. 

2.3. 

Key points emerging from the Communication with Member States  

The contributions of the Member States on the issues paper suggest that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

4 

There  is  a  need  for,  and  significant  added  value  in,  European  action  in  the  area  of 
disaster prevention. The influence of climate change on disasters makes such action 
increasingly necessary. 

EU action should support and complement national policies and measures and should 
take full account of national specificities, in particular regarding land planning. 

The EU should take an integrated approach addressing all types of disasters and the 
whole disaster cycle, encompassing prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. 

Research and  work on risk identification and assessment is an area where the need 
for EU action is particularly clear. 

Some Member States are calling for targeted funding. 

Fire prevention is an area where the Community should consider specific action. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/civil/prevention_overview.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

There  may  be  scope  for  EU  initiatives  to  improve  the  resistance  of  buildings  to 
seismic activity and extreme weather events. 

Disaster early warning systems should be established and/or strengthened. 

2.4. 

Key points emerging from the consultations with stakeholders 

There is a wide consensus among stakeholders on the need to strengthen disaster prevention 
efforts both at Member State and EU level and on the fact that EU action can provide added-
value in this process. Similar vulnerabilities across Member States, related to complex ex-ante 
and  ex-post  disaster  implications,  call  for  increased  coordination  and  cooperation  between 
Member States at EU level, while bearing in mind that the protection of citizens is primarily a 
national responsibility. 

Although an overarching multi-hazard approach to disaster prevention would be valuable in 
the long term, stakeholders' immediate demands focus on specific needs.  

•  Need for a knowledge base  

The availability of an adequate knowledge base is essential for any effective preventive action 
at  EU  level.  This  involves  raising  awareness  and  ensuring  adequate  information,  guidance, 
education,  training  and  research  on  hazards,  prevention  needs  and  measures,  for  targeted 
stakeholders, decision-makers and the general public, as well as promoting exchanges of data 
and  experience.  Although  knowledge  on  hazards  and  vulnerability  factors  exists  in  most 
Member  States,  access  to  specific  information  should  be  enhanced,  and  there  should  be 
specific research on disaster risk analysis, in particular through scenario development. 

•  Link stakeholders and policies  

The  EU  could  play  a  key  role  in  supporting  the  development  of  links  between  the  various 
actors  and  sectors  involved  in  disaster  prevention  and  in  promoting  consistency  between 
spatial and emergency planning. 

•  Funding  

Access to funding for fostering transnational cooperation on prevention should be improved 
by increasing financial resources, by earmarking specific funding and by providing guidance 
to potential applicants. 

•  The twin principles of solidarity and responsibility  

There  is  a  need  to  strike  a  balance  between  responsibility  and  solidarity,  between  damage 
prevention and compensation. Stakeholders’ opinions are divided on the principle of linking 
damage compensation to particular ex-ante or ex-post requirements. Economic resilience can 
be  ensured  through  public/private  partnerships,  covering  non-insurable  losses  such  as 
moral/social damage and business interruption. Examples of good practice in this area exist in 
some  Member  States.  The  EU  and  Member  States  should  ensure  full  implementation  of 
existing disaster prevention provisions. 

•  Forest fires 

EN 

7 

   EN 

On the question of forest fires in particular, stakeholders recommend prevention to be closely 
linked to forest management. They call for EU support for capacity building, early warning, 
fire  investigation  measures  and  targeted  communication  activities  in  vulnerable  areas.  In 
addition, in July 2007, the advisory group on forestry and cork adopted a  resolution calling 
for  re-establishing  a  financial  instrument  for  forest  fire  prevention  and  environmental 
protection. 

2.5. 

External expertise 

This  impact  assessment  has  been  conducted  by  the  Commission  with  the  assistance  of  a 
consultant specialised in assessments contracted by DG Environment (COWI).  

2.6. 

Impact Assessment Board 

A first discussion on the Impact Assessment took place on 18 June.  

On  24  June  2008,  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  issued  a  first  opinion,  asking  for  a 
resubmission  of  the  impact  assessment.  The  new  draft  sent  to  the  Board  on  3  July  2008 
reflected the comments from the Board regarding a more in-depth analysis of the subsidiarity 
issue. The problem definition was reworked and expanded, and detailed examples of existing 
Member  States'  initiatives  were  provided.  The  new  draft  also  gave  an  overview  of  existing 
funding and of existing limits. The drivers for preventive action in Member States were added 
to  the  report,  as  well  as  data  on  the  administrative,  social,  and  environmental  impact  of  the 
options proposed. 

On  28  July  2008,  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  issued  a  second  opinion,  asking  for  further 
work on several issues. The revised version of the report provides additional information on 
the  problem  definition.  It  clarifies  some  subsidiarity  issues  and  the  value  added  of  a 
Community intervention. Some clarifications on policy objectives and options have also been 
provided. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3.1. 

General  background:  disasters,  their 
prevention 

impacts  and  benefits  of  disaster 

3.1.1.  Growing number and severity of disasters  

Natural and man-made disasters kill people,  destroy property and the environment and pose 
considerable challenges to sustainable development5. 

Natural  hazards  affect  practically  all  the  Member  States  and  candidate  countries.  They 
encompass  many  phenomena  such  as  floods,  earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions,  landslides, 
avalanches,  forest  fires  and  storms.  Although  the  term  “natural”  is  used  to  describe  these 
hazards, man and human activities are often implicated to varying degrees in many disasters, 
such as forest fires and floods. At the same time, natural hazards can lead to disastrous natural 
events which may also have technological impacts (power failures linked to floods and fires, 
chemical pollution linked to earthquake damage). 

Man-made  disasters  include  technological  or  industrial  accidents,  but  also  critical  security 
situations. Certain natural disasters tend to be recurrent, while technological disasters usually 
are not. Large and infrequent disasters can cause rare but significant negative impacts, while 
the impacts of smaller, recurrent disasters can turn out to be comparatively expensive in the 
long term. 

Statistics on the number of natural and technological disasters in the various Member States 
are  attached  to  the  impact  assessment  study  (Annex  1)6.  Statistics  show  that  all  Member 
States have to cope with the consequences of disasters.  

Floods (151 between 2000 and 2008) and wind storms (98 between 2000 and 2008) are the 
most prevalent natural disasters reported. 68 extreme temperature events and 11 earthquakes 
were  reported  between  2000  and  2008.  Forest  fires  and  other  wild  fires  are  a  recurrent 
phenomenon:  the  occurrence  of  such  fires  varies  from  year  to  year  in  intensity  and  in 
geographical location. 

Regarding  the  frequency  of  disasters,  data  on  disaster  occurrence  and  their  physical  and 
economic impact remains indicative at best. It is however possible to distinguish between: 

– 

5 

6 

Disasters that happen in one or more countries and have no direct spill-over effect, 
such  as  forest  fires,  earthquakes,  or  industrial  accidents.  Such  disasters  may  strike 
different Member States at different times, but might also happen simultaneously and 
become a transnational concern. For example, the forest fires in Portugal in 2003 and 
2005 demonstrated the need for further collaboration between countries (e.g. on fire 
suppression,  training,  and  information  exchange).  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a disaster as “a situation or 
event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international level for 
external  assistance;  an  unforeseen  and  often  sudden  event  that  causes  great  damage,  destruction  and 
human suffering”. 
Disasters reported in the EM-DAT database maintained by CRED (Collaborating Centre for Research 
on the Epidemiology of Disasters)  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
large  national  disasters  with  no  direct  physical  spill-over  effect  on  other  Member 
States  may  nevertheless  produce  significant  negative  impacts  on  national  socio-
economic  or  structural  conditions,  ultimately  requiring  EU  intervention,  not  only 
through the Solidarity Fund but also to restore the general socio-economic situation 
indirectly affected by the disaster.  

– 

Disasters  with  clear  spill-over  effects  for  several  countries,  such  as  floods,  wind 
storms,  or  tsunamis.  For  example,  record-breaking  rainfall  amounts  and  intensities 
were  observed  in  central  Europe  during  the  first  half  of  August  2002:  the  Vltava 
submerged parts of the city of Prague, the Elbe flooded parts of Dresden. Parts of the 
Danube catchment were also affected by severe flooding.  

Disasters are increasing in frequency and magnitude  

Annex 1 gives detailed information on disasters in EU-27 between 2000 and 2007 reported in 
the Emergency Database of Disasters (EMDAT database).  

During this period the 494 disasters experienced by the EU-277 killed 79 342 people and had 
a  total  cost  of  €103  billion.  The  ma jority  of  deaths  occurred  in  Member  States  affected  by 
extreme temperatures, in particular during the 2003 summer, while floods caused most of the 
economic costs, in particular in 2000, 2002 and 2007. 

As  illustrated  in  the  following  graphs,  disasters  are  increasing  both  in  frequency  and 
magnitude. Globally, since 1975, the number of natural disasters has increased from around 
75 to more than 400 a year. This is almost entirely caused by an increase in weather-related 
disasters:  over  the  last  three  years  hydro-meteorological  disasters  increased  by  more  than 
100%, from about 100 in 2004 to more than 200 in 20068.In the EU-27, over the 1990-2007 
period, there was a dramatic trend of increasing number and severity of both natural and man-
made  disasters,  with  a  steeper  increase  in  natural  disasters.  In  the  EU-27,  the  number  of 
natural disasters reported increased from 43 in 1974-1978 to 288 in 1999-20039.  

Natural disasters inflict considerable damage and costs 

The reported cost of estimated damages10 from disasters in the EU-27 between 1974 and 1978 
was 16 042 million USD11. For the 1999-2003 period the reported total damage was 52 153 
million  USD12,  more  than  a  threefold  increase.  This  relative  increase  is  higher  than  that 
experienced by the global damage costs, that only doubled in the same period from 108 200 
million USD13 (1974-1978) to 216 962 million USD14 (1999-2003)CRED (2004) Thirty years 

7 

8 
9 
10 

11 

12 
13 
14 

For a disaster to be entered into the database, at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled : 10 
or  more  people  killed,  100  or  more  people  affected,  declaration  of  a  state  of  emergency,  call  for 
international assistance 
EMDAT database 
EMDAT database 
Since  there  is  no  standard  procedure  to  determine  a  global  figure  for  economic  impact,  several 
institutions  have  developed  methodologies  to  quantify  these  losses  in  their  specific  domain.  See 
http://www.emdat.be/ExplanatoryNotes/explanotes.html. 
Costs in USD at 2003 value. The equivalent amount in Euros, estimated on the basis of the exchange 
rate applied on the 2nd January 2003 by the European Central bank, is € 16,757 million. 
Approximately € 54,479 million using the mentioned exchange rate 
Approximately € 113,000 million (2003 exchange) 
Approximately € 227,000 million (2003 exchange) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
of  natural  disasters  1974-2003.  Presently,  the  economic  cost  of  disasters  in  Europe  is 
estimated at 15 billion Euros yearly15. 

Insurance companies are directly affected: in 2004 natural events caused indemnity payments 
of over €1.6 billion, according to reports from nati onal insurance organisations to the Insurers 
of Europe (CEA, 2006)16. It has to be borne in mind that the cost to society is considerably 
higher than the cost to the insurance companies. Because of certain assets not being covered 
by insurance, total damage is thus greater than insured damage17. 

Indirect costs resulting from disasters can also affect the financial markets, in particular credit 
ratings  and  interest  rates.  Increases  in  financial  cost  (cost  of  capital  and  increased  risk 
premiums) may also affect the competitiveness of European business. In addition, the cost of 
a  disaster  and  the  risk  of  future  disasters  must  be  spread  amongst  stakeholders.  Within  the 
European Union the insurance coverage for e.g. storms and flooding differs greatly, with the 
state providing guarantees in some countries and not in others. This affects the risk borne by 
the insurance company, as well as risk premiums.  

Disasters are increasingly causing transboundary impacts  

Disasters do not recognise borders, and some disasters are increasingly having transboundary 
impacts  linked  in  particular  to  the  infrastructural  interconnections  between  Member  States. 
For  example  the  Baia  Mare  spill  of  cyanide,  in  north-west  Romania,  in  2000,  lead  to  water 
contamination  through  drainage  systems  reaching  several  large  international  rivers  before 
eventually reaching the Black Sea. Other examples in 2002 were the devastating floods along 
the Danube and Elbe rivers in Central Europe, flooding in Southern France, and the Prestige 
oil spill18. Other types of accidents may have transboundary impacts, such as the forest fires 
of the summer of 2007. 

An adverse event affecting a single EU Member State or a small group of Member States can 
have an impact in terms of compensation requested through the Solidarity Fund, but also has a 
general  impact  on  its  sustainable  socio-economic  development  and  on  EU  cohesion, 
potentially  increasing  its  general  financing  needs  with  regard  to  the  national  and  the  EU 
budget.  

The cross-border dimension has to be taken into consideration, as different protection levels 
for  citizens  in  the  different  Member  States  or  regions  may  imply  a  different  level  of 
vulnerability for similar events, implying increased costs and damages.  

A growing demand for the civil protection Mechanism 

15 
16 

17 

18 

ABI (2005) and Munich Re (2008).  
This  number  only  includes  reports  from  the  countries  that  supplied  information  to  the  CEA.  The 
indemnity on European level is thus considerably higher than estimated here. 
This was the case with the winter storm Gerda in January 2004. The insured damage was worth €80.5 
million, whereas the total damage was estimated to be €104.7 million (CEA 2006). 
Mapping  the  impact  of  recent  natural  disasters  and  technological  accidents  in  Europe,  European 
Environment Agency, Copenhagen 2003. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
The Community Mechanism for civil protection is increasingly recognised by European and 
international actors, as illustrated by the following graphs. Its main role19 is to facilitate co-
operation  on  civil  protection  assistance  in  the  event  of  major  emergencies  requiring  a  rapid 
response. Investment in disaster preparedness and response can provide a short-term solution 
to  immediate  risks,  and  is  often  an  essential  element  to  ensure  the  safety  of  populations. 
However, particularly in the case of recurrent disasters, the cost of response can turn out to be 
relatively  heavy  in  the  long  term,  not  only  for  the  country  affected  but  also  in  terms  of 
external solidarity.  

3.1.2.  A wide range of affected actors 

Vulnerability  to  natural  and  man-made  disasters  is  increasing,  due  to  increasingly  intensive 
land  use,  industrial  development,  urban  expansion  and  infrastructure  construction,  and  to 
climate change. 

The  vulnerability  to  natural  or  man-made  disasters  is  often  the  result  of  multiple  risks.  The 
impact of natural hazards may be aggravated by factors linked to human activity (e.g. floods 
vs water basin planning, intensive socio-economic investment in risk-prone areas, inadequate 
technical standards for construction in risk-prone areas). Conversely, technological risks can 
be  aggravated  by  natural  conditions,  with  technological  impacts  adding  to  natural  impacts 
(earthquake causing damage to structures containing dangerous substances). 

All EU inhabitants may be affected or suffer from the impacts of disasters in various ways: 
damage to human health and casualties, damage to the environment, direct or indirect damage 
to  economic  assets,  private  property,  or  infrastructure.  Depending  on  the  type  of  disaster, 
direct impacts may also affect public administration, in particular its organisational model, the 
funding  mechanisms,  the  information  and  communication  procedures.  Sudden  disasters  are 
likely to affect all sectors (economic sectors, public administration, civil society). 

The  potential  impact  of  a  disaster  varies  within  the  EU,  depending  on  the  vulnerability  and 
resilience of the Member States. The impact of the different disasters on the population also 
varies depending on the type of disaster. In the EU, disasters caused by extreme temperatures 
have  led  to  over  75 000  casualties  since  2000,  representing  95%  of  all  deaths  caused  by 
disasters. 76% of these deaths occurred in France, Italy and Spain. Flooding, which killed 524 
people  in  2000-2008,  is  more  widespread  and  has  high  economic  impacts.  Vulnerability  to 
floods appears to be particularly high in Romania (38% of the deaths) followed by Italy (15%) 
and Bulgaria (15%). 

3.2. 

A fragmented approach to disaster mitigation 

Prevention is an integral part of the disaster management cycle. The impacts of disasters may 
be  reduced  by  measures  aiming  at  preventing  the  disasters  and  their  impacts,  enhancing 
preparedness  and  response,  and  ensuring  effective  recovery/reconstruction.  Furthermore, 
potential  measures  in  these  areas  require  a  range  of  instruments,  which  may  fall  within  the 
competence of different ministries and involve a diversity of private and public actors. 

19 

Council Decision 2001/792 of 23 October 2001, recast by Council Decision 2007/779 of 8 November 
2007. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
For these reasons, in the Communication COM(2008)130 on reinforcing the Union’s disaster 
response  capacity  to  take  an  integrated  approach  to  disasters,  the  Commission  proposed 
encompassing all phases, embracing all tools and instruments, and addressing all categories of 
disasters. Stakeholder consultations have also highlighted the fact that emergency planning is 
often technically and administratively disconnected from spatial planning, and can hinder or 
delay response.  

3.2.1.  Current situation at EU level  

Currently, the approach to disaster prevention is fragmented. The EU has adopted directives 
on flooding and on industrial accidents (Seveso Directive) but has not addressed other types 
of  disasters  such  as  earthquakes,  storms  or  forest  fires.  Furthermore,  disaster  prevention 
projects  may  be  eligible  for  financing  under  various  financial  instruments  which  could  be 
better  coordinated.  Finally,  policies  affecting  land  planning,  such  as  environmental, 
agricultural, transport, energy and regional policies, could be better coordinated with regard to 
disaster prevention.  

3.2.2.  Current situation in Member States  

Preventive action is often fragmented 

In Member States, the approach to disaster prevention is also fragmented20. However, recent 
trends  in  most  Member  States  lean  towards  increased  integration  and  coordination  between 
actors and policies involved in disaster prevention. Preventive action tends to be taken in the 
wake  of  a  disaster  and  concentrate  on  a  particular  type  of  disaster.  Nevertheless,  Member 
States  find  that  it  can  be  difficult  to  maintain  long-term  political  momentum  and 
corresponding  budget  allocations  as  time  elapses  from  the  particular  disaster  that  caused 
political attention. 

The drivers of a prevention policy differ between Member States  

Member  States  have  developed  effective  and  well-coordinated  mechanisms  for  crisis 
management for a long time. Disaster prevention as a discipline in its own right, however, is a 
new area. This is also reflected in the fact that the concept of prevention is not defined in a 
unique manner, neither across countries nor within a specific country. 

The  main  drive  behind  the  development  of  prevention  approaches  is  to  be  found  in  the 
obligations stemming from EU legislation and international commitments in  general,  and in 
the understanding that the overall risk picture is changing. For instance, in Sweden, the wind 
storms in 2003 were the main reason for the implementation of a new legislation concerning 
the prevention of accidents in 2004. In France, the heat wave in 2003 was the starting point 
for  a  national  heat  disaster  prevention  plan.  In  Romania,  the  water  directive  has  lead  to  the 
development of risk maps. The Netherlands and the UK suffered great damage and loss of life 
in  1953  due  to  catastrophic  coastal  flooding21  which  had  an  impact  on  the  development  of 
prevention policies. In the UK, an early-warning system warns people in vulnerable areas at 
least  two  hours  before  the  flooding  occurs;  in  the  Netherlands,  flood  barriers  have  been 
developed.  

20 
21 

Member States’ approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 
The Thames Estuary Partnership Web 2008 a, and Olsthoorn & Tol 2001. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
A gradual loss of prevention culture at individual level  

In  Member  States,  early  warning  systems  and  risk  mapping  are  integral  aspects  of  civil 
protection and widely acknowledged as important tools in prevention. Case studies22 seem to 
indicate that the new Member States and Member States with high risk exposure relative to 
their economic capabilities are positive towards strong joint efforts and obligations.  

On the other hand, the same studies show a loss of prevention culture at the individual level. 
Somehow, prevention seems to be perceived by the citizen as a societal responsibility at the 
expense  of  individual  precautions:  citizens,  industries  and  other  actors  might  therefore  be 
reluctant  to  take  appropriate  prevention  measures  proactively.  Prevention  at  the  individual 
level  also  depends  on  insurance  policy:  in  some  Member  States  the  insurance  system  is 
compulsory,  solidarity-based  and  guaranteed  by  the  State.  This  implies  that  all  property 
owners  are  covered,  no  matter  what  their  financial  situation  is.  In  some  cases  insurance  is 
combined with spatial planning, whereby insurance entitlement depends on compliance with 
regulations  governing  identified  risk  zones.  In  such  cases  the  main  challenge  seems  to  be 
enforcement and control.  

All  Member  States  provide  incentives  for  better  individual  prevention  behaviour  through 
awareness building and educational efforts. Some involve local communities in the framing of 
plans and actions, or perform information campaigns. 

The organisational structure of Member States has an impact on their prevention policy.  

The internal administrative structure within Member States also determines the way in which 
prevention  measures  are  designed  and  implemented.  While  some  Member  States  have  a 
highly  centralised  structure,  others  see  decentralised  organisation  as  a  strategic  approach  to 
disaster prevention. For instance, while in a country like France prevention responsibilities are 
concentrated at the national level, in others such as Portugal and Sweden they are devolved to 
the  regional  and  local  levels.  The  understanding  here  is  that  knowledge  of  local  conditions 
and a cross-sectoral approach at the local level are a strength.  

3.3. 

Specific problems 

The preparatory work and the consultations of the Member States and stakeholders have lead 
to the identification of four specific problems which are discussed in this section: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the lack of a consistent knowledge base; 

limited or non-existent links amongst the various actors and policy areas; 

EU funds could better contribute to disaster prevention; 

the lack of prevention measures regarding certain specific disasters. 

22 

Member States approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
3.3.1.  The lack of a consistent knowledge base 

Recent research has shown that “an adequate and consistent normative framework is essential 
to implement risk management”23. For instance, “the lack of, and need for, a global statistical 
fire  database,  by  which  the  economic  and  ecologic  impact  of  fires  could  be  spatially  and 
temporarily quantified, was identified”24.  

Currently,  data  and  information  on  occurrences,  risks,  consequences  and  costs  of  disasters, 
their  wider  impacts  and  the  relevant  policy  responses,  are  at  best  indicative.  They  are  not 
systematically  made  available  or  shared  at  EU  level,  leading  to  inequalities  and  loss  of 
cohesion  between  disaster-prone  regions.  Furthermore,  the  basic  information  on  risks  of 
disasters  is  being  developed  via  a  variety  of  methodologies  which  may  generate 
inconsistencies  and  lack  of  comparability,  potentially  resulting  in  divergent  awareness  and 
protection levels. There is no cross-cutting coordination mechanism to ensure dissemination 
of best practices or an enhanced focus on applied research.  

The  intersection  between  policy  needs  and  scientific/technical  data,  the  links  between 
vulnerability assessment and legislation are not always clearly identified or transparent. The 
evaluation of risk and risk acceptance levels for policy-makers, professionals and citizens may 
be prejudiced by incomplete, ambiguous or excessively complicated information, resulting in 
unrealistic risk perceptions.  

3.3.2.  Limited or non-existent links amongst the various actors and policy areas 

Existing  EU  action  relating  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  prevention  of  disasters  has  been 
developed specifically to address well defined issues such as floods or technological disasters 
(e.g. SEVESO). Coordination is needed to define priorities and organise mutual synergies. 

Furthermore,  measures  taken  in  the  management  disaster  cycle  (prevention,  preparedness, 
response,  recovery)  could  be  better  coordinated.  This  is  generally  acknowledged  to  be  the 
necessary consequence of the fact that disasters may touch upon numerous policy areas and 
involve a variety of actors. 

For  example,  urban  planning  and  emergency  planning  criteria  are  often  established  and 
monitored  by  different  administrations  at  different  levels,  often  without  any  mutual 
information  or  consultation.  Prevention  rarely  features  in  emergency  exercises  and 
simulations.  There  is  also  potential  for  reinforcing  the  links  between  actors  subject  to  the 
SEVESO  Directive  such  as  the  chemical  industry,  emergency  planning  experts,  or  land-use 
planning experts. 

Nevertheless,  the  studies  conducted  in  some  Member  States25  (Romania,  France,  Sweden, 
Portugal)  showed  that  in  some  Member  States,  links  are  being  developed  between  public 
institutions.  For  example,  the  Swedish  Rescue  Services  Agency  was  chosen  as  one  of  the 
main  institutions  to  implement  the  EU  SEVESO  Directive  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  an 

23 

24 
25 

A  new  pattern  of  risk  management:  the  Hyogo  framework  for  action  and  Italian  practise.  Marialuce 
Stanganelli  .Department  of  Urban  and  Regional  Planning  and  Earth  Sciences,  University  of  Napoli, 
2007. 
Fire Management Working Paper FM 18 E, FAO 2006. 
Member States’ approaches towards prevention policy — a critical analysis. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
organisation with cross-cutting structures. In France, following the heat wave of 2003, a heat 
wave prevention plan involving various administrations has been developed. 

3.3.3.  EU funds could better contribute to disaster prevention 

Existing  funding  sources  include  the  financing of  preventive  action  from  private  and  public 
sources, from Member States and from the EU. The funding possibilities are substantial: there 
is therefore no general scarcity of funding. 

Private sector investment focuses on specific projects rather than comprehensive industry or 
cross-industry  initiatives.  According  to  various  studies26,  four  main  industries  are  the  most 
active  in  prevention  investments:  insurers  and  reinsurers,  engineering  and  construction, 
information  communication  technology  and  telecoms,  and  utilities  and  transportation.  At 
national  level,  the  main  source  of  assistance  comes  from  public  funds,  in  particular  to 
compensate for damage and losses due to extreme weather events in the most affected weaker 
regions.  At  EU  level,  a  number  of  EU  financial  mechanisms  exist  that  may  specifically 
support prevention, but these are in some cases limited in resources, e.g. LIFE+ and the Civil 
Protection Financial Instrument.  

The annual budget of LIFE+ in 2008 totals nearly 250 Mil €, distributed between three wide 
thematic  areas.  In  this  framework,  prevention  refers  specifically  to  two  topics  only:  forest 
fires and waste. The scope of LIFE+ with regard to forest fire prevention and suppression is 
limited to information and communication action within the EU, such as training for agents 
involved  in  forest  fire  prevention  and  awareness  raising  campaigns  for  rural  populations 
affected by forest and woodland fires.  

The  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument  (20  Mil  €  in  2008)  virtua lly  covers  the  whole 
spectrum  of  possible  disaster  prevention  measures,  defining  prevention  as  “any  action  that 
supports  Member  States  in  preventing  risk  or  reducing  harm  to  people,  the  environment  or 
property resulting from emergencies.” In 2008, an amount of 1.1 Mil € has been earmarked 
for a call for proposals for prevention projects.  

The  funding  possibilities  through  Structural  Funds  and  Cohesion  Policy  are  substantial  and 
are  programmed  by  the  Member  States.  The  Convergence  objective  under  the  Regional 
Development  Fund,  in  particular,  specifically  includes  risk  prevention.  However,  Structural 
and Cohesion financial coverage is frequently limited to certain groups of member States and 
does not necessarily cover risks arising from non-structural factors. 

The  exploratory  studies  carried  out  in  four  member  States  prior  to  the  present  Impact 
Assessment, as well as the stakeholder consultation, have highlighted the wish both from the 
administration  and  business  for  strategic  guidance  on  how  to  set  priorities  in  the  field  of 
prevention  and  for  a  single  entry  point  for  providing  information  and  advice  on  disaster 
prevention measures and funding sources. 

26 

Building  resilience  to  natural  disasters:  a  framework  for  private  sector  engagement,  World  Economic 
Forum, January 2008. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
3.3.4.  The lack of prevention measures for specific disasters  

Certain disasters have been addressed at the EU level, for example flooding and technological 
accidents.  These  examples  show  that  vertical  policies  can  obtain  results,  including 
accelerating efforts and easing the planning and implementation of policies and actions. 

Other  important  disasters  have  not  been  specifically  addressed.  In  particular,  building  on 
existing measures taken at EU and national level, there is a need to explore whether a more 
comprehensive  EU  approach  to  the  prevention  of  forest  fires  could  be  implemented.  Forest 
fires are one of the most frequent disasters in the EU, and for which experience shows that the 
EU may provide useful support and complement national policies. The issue of forest and other 
wild  fires  therefore  requires  comprehensive  scientific  knowledge  and  policies  covering  and 
linking prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.  

3.4. 

Expected evolution of these problems 

The frequency of natural disasters is expected to increase, as emphasised by the Commission 
in the Green Paper on adaptation to climate change.  

According  to  the  EEA27  “warm  periods,  including  heat  waves,  are  expected  to  be  more 
intense,  more  frequent  and  longer-lasting”.  According  to  the  IPCC  report28  “climate-related 
hazards will mostly increase”. In particular “winter floods are likely to increase in maritime 
regions  and  flash  floods  are  likely  to  increase  throughout  Europe”,  “catastrophic  fires  are 
expected  on  drained  peatlands  in  central  Europe”.  As  human  activity  and  settlements  make 
land use more intensive, man-made risks are likely to increase. 

This may be somewhat mitigated as the Member States are, at different levels and to different 
degrees,  taking  steps  towards  disaster  prevention,  for  example  in  the  area  of  risk  mapping. 
However, the development of different approaches by Member States will also have adverse 
effects,  notably  in  terms  of  increased  difficulties  in  building  synergies  between  national 
approaches and developing a consistent knowledge base on disasters. 

3.5. 

The grounds for EU action 

Disaster prevention actions are a transnational issue 

Although  there  are  differences  in  vulnerability  to  different  types  of  disasters  among  the 
Member States, disaster prevention is a transnational issue. 

One can distinguish between: 

– 

actions  on  disasters  occurring  in  one  country,  with  no  spill-over  effects,  but 
which may deserve Community action in terms of solidarity;  

In  many  cases  disasters  only  affect  one  Member  State  or  specific  regions  of  one  Member 
State. For instance, most of western Europe suffers relatively few significant landslides29. By 

27 
28 
29 

EEA (2007): Europe’s Environment, the fourth assessment. 
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II Report “Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability”. 
Mapping  the  impacts  of  recent  natural  disasters  and  technological  incidents  in  Europe,  European 
Environment Agency report, 2003. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
contrast, the Mediterranean basin (e.g. southern Italy  and the eastern Iberian Peninsula) and 
the mountain regions of central and eastern Europe are particularly vulnerable to these events. 
The vulnerability increases if urbanisation and poor forest management are present.  

– 

action on disasters with spill-over effects in several countries; 

The large river systems of western, central and eastern Europe, as well as the smaller streams 
of the Mediterranean, make these areas vulnerable to flooding. Similarly, southern Europe is 
prone  to  drought,  the  Mediterranean  and  eastern  Europe  to  forest  fires,  western  Europe  and 
the British Isles to storms, mountain areas such as the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Carpathians 
to avalanches and specific areas such as the central and eastern Mediterranean to earthquakes 
and volcanic eruptions. 

Major  disasters,  notably  disasters  related  to  extreme  weather  conditions  such  as  flooding  or 
forest fires, tend to affect several Member States at the same time or over a limited span of 
time.  For  example,  the  2002  floods  inflicted  significant  damage  to  regions  in  the  Czech 
Republic,  Slovakia,  Italy,  Spain,  Germany,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  and  Hungary.  The 
2007 forest fires burnt large areas in Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Spain, whilst the 2003 forest 
fires  hit  Portugal,  Spain,  France  and  Italy.  Moreover,  with  a  changing  climate  there  are 
indications  that  the  risk  of  weather-related  disasters  is  becoming  less  specific  to  particular 
geographical areas. 

– 

other measures  

Much of disaster risk prevention draws on a common set of methodologies, instruments and 
tools, such as risk identification, mapping and assessment. These non disaster-specific aspects 
concern all EU Member States. 

Equivalent safety and protection across the EU 

All EU citizens are entitled to an equivalent level of safety and protection on the territory of 
the EU.  

Lack of Community action would damage the interests of Member States. 

The  increasing  number  of  severe  disasters  across  the  EU  does  not  only  have  a  local 
dimension. The accumulation of impacts may affect economic growth of the EU as a whole. 

EU citizens expect the EU to act  

According to a special Eurobarometer report published in March 200830, Europeans attach an 
overwhelming  importance  to  protecting  the  environment.  78%  of  respondents  indicated  that 
environmental problems have a direct effect on their daily lives.  

Cost of inaction  

A  recent  OECD  study31  points  to  the  fact  that  while  the  economic  risks  associated  with 
natural  disasters  (e.g.  floods,  hurricanes)  can  only  be  partly  reduced  through  public  policy 

30 

“Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment”, Special Eurobarometer 295/ Wave 68.2 — 
TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission, March 2008. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
measures (e.g. mitigation of climate change, flood prevention measures), the cost of inaction 
in these areas can also be considerable. 

The OECD study also states that environment-related industrial hazards such as oil spills and 
land  contamination  are  already  generating  significant  costs  of  inaction.  For  example, 
experience  in  Europe  and  US  indicates  that  the  cost  of  cleaning  up  or  restoring  damaged 
ecosystems  after  industrial  accidents  can  be  billions  of  Euros.  Moreover,  due  to  the 
irreversible nature of some of the associated impacts, the real losses to society will be higher 
than  these  direct  financial  costs  (no  matter  how  comprehensive  the  remediation  efforts  may 
be). 

It can also be inferred that, in quantitative terms, economic losses from natural disasters are 
likely  to  be  proportional  to  the  affected  country’s  GDP.  However,  the  qualitative  impact  of 
natural disasters is likely to be more devastating for the poor (low-GDP EU Member States or 
low-income  groups  of  citizens  in  any  EU  Member  State).  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of 
prevention measures within the EU: 

– 

– 

rich Member States would tend to suffer higher economic losses in strict economic 
terms, partly because of the concentration of crucial assets;  

poorer  Member  States  or  population  groups  would  be  more  severely  impacted  and 
thwarted  in  fulfilling  their  economic  potential,  thus  countering  the  effects  of 
cohesion policies. 

EU Institutions call for EU action on prevention of disasters. 

The EESC has welcomed32 the future Commission initiative on prevention.  

The  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  meeting  of  19-20  June  stated  that:  “§24.  The 
European  Council  welcomes  ongoing  efforts  to  reinforce  the  Union’s  disaster-management 
capacities and stresses  the  need  for  a  coordinated approach to managing disasters. It invites 
the Council, the Commission and Member States to take this work forward rapidly.” 

On 16 June GAERC adopted conclusions on the Commission Communication on reinforcing 
the  Union’s  disaster  response  capacity.  Regarding  disaster  prevention,  the  Council 
emphasised  the  need  for  a  balanced  approach  guided  by  two  principles:  national 
responsibility,  whereby  each  Member  State  takes  appropriate  preventive  and  operational 
measures  for  the  protection  and  safety  of  people,  the  environment  and  property;  and  EU 
solidarity, which is the basis for the provision of assistance rendered on request to Member 
States  and  third  countries  and  their  people,  when  affected  by  a  disaster  that  exceeds  their 
response capacity.  

At  the  June  19th  plenary  session,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  Resolution33  on  the 
Union’s disaster response capacity. Regarding prevention, Parliament in particular urged the 
Commission to submit a package of legally binding instruments (e.g. a framework directive) 
with a view to filling in gaps in existing EU legislation, policies and programmes as regards 

31 
32 
33 

Cost of Inaction on Environmental Policy Changes, Summary Report ENV/EPOC (2007)16 Final. 
EESC Opinion “Improving the civil protection Mechanism — a response to natural disasters” (2008/03/13). 
European Parliament Resolution of 19 June 2008 on stepping up the Union’s disaster response capacity. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
disaster  prevention  and  response.  It  recommended  that  such  a  comprehensive  framework 
should  comprise  three  pillars,  with  a  view  to  stepping  up  prevention  under  existing  EU 
mechanisms  and  Member  State  approaches,  developing  a  new  framework  approach  on 
disaster  prevention,  and  supporting  further  development  of  prevention  knowledge  and 
technology through EU research and development programmes.  

4. 

OBJECTIVES 

Member States already have, to varying degrees, policies aimed at the prevention of disasters. 
Action at Community level should therefore complement national actions and focus on areas 
where a common approach is more effective than separate national approaches.  

The overall objective of the Communication is to identify measures which could be included 
in  a  Community  strategy  on  disaster  prevention  that  would  bridge  the  existing  gaps,  link 
various  sectors  and  initiatives  and  be  the  overall  policy  framework  for  initialising  sector 
specific  and/or  thematic  initiatives,  horizontal  and  cross  cutting  tools  and  guidelines  for 
disaster prevention in EU-27. On this basis, existing thematic or sectoral initiatives should be 
complemented and gaps should be filled to adapt the existing policy framework to the overall 
approach to the prevention of disasters. 

This overall aim is expected to be achieved through the following specific objectives:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

build a consistent knowledge base on disasters; 

link the various actors and policies; 

improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters; 

better target specific risks 

Without duplicating existing policies at EU and national level, the initiative will cover both 
natural and man-made disasters. The implementation of the first three objectives will have an 
impact  on  disasters  as  a  whole  and  will  not  distinguish  between  natural  and  man-made 
disasters,  as  natural  hazards  can  lead  to  disastrous  natural  events  which  may  also  have 
technological impacts (power failures linked to floods and fires, chemical pollution linked to 
earthquake  damage).  The  fourth  objective  will  nevertheless  distinguish  clearly  between 
natural and man-made disasters as it is aimed at targeting specific risks, and devoting specific 
instruments to them.  

4.1. 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 

There  is  a  need  for  a  systematic  exchange  of  information  and  experience  and  to  develop 
common methodologies for the collection of data on disasters, its analysis and interpretation, 
drawing  inter  alia  on  information  and  communication  technologies.  This  would  make  the 
aggregation of data and information possible and thereby facilitate a more general analysis of 
issues related to disasters. Furthermore, a pooling of information and experience could ease 
the work and save time and resources that are needed for implementing disaster prevention in 
the  EU.  It  would  also  improve  the  basis  on  which  to  perform  assessments  of  effects  of 
disasters and cost-benefit assessments of disaster prevention measures. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

4.2. 

Link  the  various  actors  and  sectoral  policies  throughout  the  disaster 
management cycle 

It is necessary to make all existing policies work in a direction which is on the one hand not 
detrimental to disaster prevention efforts and, on the other hand, can support and accelerate 
such efforts. This requires linking sectoral policies to provide a basis for an overall approach 
and  coordinating  measures  taken  regarding  the  disaster  management  cycle  (prevention, 
preparedness, response, recovery). 

4.3. 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 

Currently, a number of EU funds may provide support to projects and programmes including 
the prevention of disasters. There is a need for better targeting of such funding and for more 
immediate links between the funded actions and the prevention of disasters. 

4.4. 

Better target specific risks, building on existing initiatives 

A  number  of  EU  legal  instruments  already  exist  today,  and  new  initiatives  are  expected. 
Building on existing initiatives, gaps should be filled to target specific risks.  

5. 

OPTIONS 

This chapter outlines the options available. 

Firstly,  the  baseline  described  in  section  5.1.  characterises  a  situation  where  no  further  EU 
action  is  taken  regarding  the  prevention  of  disasters.  This  option  and  its  assessment  later  in 
this report aim at informing the policy decision on whether or not to develop an EU strategy 
on disaster prevention. 

Secondly, sections 5.2 to 5.5 describe the various options available in the four areas of action 
identified in chapter 4. These are not mutually exclusive unless otherwise indicated. It should 
be noted that these options embrace a range of levels of ambition. 

5.1. 

Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters 

The baseline for no further EU action option can be described as one where: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Member States progress at a different pace and with different levels of ambition with 
regard to developing consistent, comprehensive and operational strategies and plans 
for disaster prevention; 

Vertical gaps in terms of insufficient or non-existent prevention plans may subsist in 
certain sectors, but not in others, or in some countries; 

There is a tendency for a reactive approach to dominate; 

No effort is made on the comparability of tools and measures such as risk mapping 
and vulnerability assessments.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

5.2. 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 

Specific objectives for building a consistent knowledge base on disasters include: 

•  An initiative on risk mapping 

Community action in the field of risk mapping can add value by contributing to an equal level 
of safety and protection throughout the Community. 

In this context, possible options, not mutually exclusive, could include:  

– 

– 

– 

developing  general  principles  and  minimum  prevention  guidelines.  EU  guidelines 
could be based on Member States' best practices regarding vulnerability assessments 
and  the  use  of  risk  maps.  The  role  of  the  private  sector  in  this  field  (insurance 
companies)  should  also  be  considered.  As  a  first  step,  the  Community  guidelines 
could focus on disasters causing potential transboundary consequences; 

fostering cooperation between Member States in developing a common approach for 
analysing the potential vulnerability of defined geographical areas; 

EU legislation aimed at defining the methodologies for risk identification, evaluation 
and mapping by the Member States as well as a timetable for creating and updating 
risk  maps.  The  general  purpose  of  risk  maps  would  be  to  plan  effective  preventive 
action  in  areas  prone  to  natural  and  man-made  disasters  in  Europe  and  the 
prioritisation  of  risks  for  which  preventive  action  should  be  taken  according  to 
national norms.  

•  A disaster observatory 

This  would  compile  existing  data  and  information  on  disasters  in  the  EU.  It  would  also 
identify comparability issues and data/information gaps, propose common methodologies and 
undertake  projects  together  with  concerned  parties.  Where  relevant,  it  would  work  closely 
with the environmental data centres established by Eurostat, the joint Research Centre and the 
European  Environment  Agency.  It  would  also  work  closely  with  other  exchange  platforms 
related  to  disasters,  such  as  the  European  Forest  Information  System  EFFIS,  the  European 
Flood  Alert  System  EFAS,  the  European  Community  Urgent  Radiological  Information 
Exchange  ECURIE,  the  Natural  and  Environmental  Disaster  Information  Exchange  System 
NEDIES and the European Droughts Observatory currently being established by the European 
Commission.  It  would  also  provide  input  for  continuing  research  and  pilot  validation  on 
prevention  of  disasters  through  the  framework  programme  for  research  and  technological 
development. 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  disaster  observatory  would  be  to  collect,  store,  and  assess 
guidelines, best practices, and disaster case histories and to facilitate exchange of information. 
It would promote a series of studies on lessons learnt in Member States — from emergency 
action after accidents and disasters to drafting guidelines on information to be communicated 
to the public — including the private sector — on major hazards. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

Action  in  this  field  should  be  in  line  with  SEIS  principles34  and  build  upon  the 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive and further development of the GMES initiative, as 
a basis for improving respectively the sharing of disaster-related data and information within 
Europe and the provision of services to public policy-makers and citizens. 

•  The launching of projects under the Civil Protection Financial Instrument  

Projects on the development of common methodologies for data acquisition and information 
generation on disasters in the EU could provide guidance to the Member States. 

5.3. 

Improved  linking  between  actors  and  sectoral  policies  throughout  the  disaster 
management cycle 

Non  mutually  exclusive  specific  options  for  linking  the  various  actors  and  sectoral  policies 
include: 

•  Developing best practices and guidelines involving prevention aspects 

Lessons  learnt  during  assessments  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  Member  States  after 
emergencies,  currently  focusing  on  preparedness  and  response  aspects,  could  include  a 
prevention dimension.  

•  A multisectoral steering group 

The  Commission  would  set  up  a  steering  group  comprising  representatives  of  the  various 
sectors  concerned  and  applying  an  open  method  of  coordination.  The  group  would  identify 
needs  regarding  the  linkage  of  policies  throughout  the  disaster  management  cycle, 
recommend  actions  to  be  taken  at  national  and  EU  level  to  enhance  the  links  between  the 
relevant  policies  at  national  and  EU  levels,  and  monitor  the  implementation  of  the 
recommendations. Its activities could also include the follow-up of other options such as the 
activities of the disaster observatory (section 5.2.) or the development and implementation of 
guidance  on  the  use  of  EU  funds  (section  5.4.).  The  steering  group  might  also  draw  up 
guidelines and recommendations on more technical areas (e.g. content of a disaster prevention 
report,  guidelines  for  risk  mapping,  recommendations  for  research  and  funding).  It  would 
build upon existing initiatives at Community level35 

5.4. 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 

Specific options to improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters include: 

– 

34 
35 

Specific  funding:  a  specific  disaster  prevention  financial  instrument  would  be 
created  to  finance  national  initiatives  for  preventing  disasters.  It  would  be 
multisectoral in nature. 

Communication “Towards a shared environmental information system”(SEIS) COM(2008)46 final. 
In  this  context  the  Commission's  'Regions  for  economic  change'  initiative35  (COM(2006)675)  already 
offers a framework for the development of such platforms. Within its thirty priority themes, three are 
focused  on  risk  prevention  and  provide  an  opportunity  for  regions  across  Europe  to  exchange 
experience and spread good practice. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

Guidance on use of funds: the Commission would develop in cooperation with the 
experts  of  the  Member  States  guidance  on  the  use  of  EU  funds  for  preventing 
disasters.  This  would  include  mapping  EU  instruments  capable  of  fund  disaster 
prevention  activities,  recommendations  on  the  use  of  the  funds,  and  a  catalogue  of 
prevention measures to be considered by the Member States for funding by the EU in 
the light of their national conditions. The Commission would use these guidelines to 
assess and report on the relevant EU expenditure. 

Enhancing  prevention  provisions  in  EU  funding  instruments:  in  the  review 
cycles of EU funds, provisions would be added to the legal bases of the funds on a 
programming of measures on disaster prevention to be financed by the funds. 

Specific funding radically differs from the other two options and could not be combined with 
these. 

5.5. 

Better target specific risks building on existing initiatives 

Specific  sectoral  prevention  initiatives  may  be  required  using  inter  alia  the  experience 
acquired  in  the  implementation  of  relevant  Directives  such  as  the  Floods  and  the  SEVESO 
Directive. Non mutually exclusive specific options for reviewing and complementing existing 
initiatives include: 

•  Improving the targeting of prevention in existing EU instruments 

This  option  would  consist  of  a  screening  of  existing  instruments  to  identify  ways  of 
improving  the  targeting  of  disaster  prevention  in  national  and  EU  policies.  The  identified 
improvements  would  be  integrated  into  the  issues  considered  in  the  review  cycles  of  the 
instruments  concerned.  For  example,  the  review  cycle  of  the  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment  Directive,  as  amended,36  could  potentially  examine  whether  the  environmental 
impact assessment of individual projects sufficiently addresses the direct and indirect effects 
on disaster risk prevention. The review of EU legislation on major industrial accidents could 
assess the effectiveness of the provisions of the SEVESO Directive in relation to prevention 
in the context of the ongoing review of the Directive. 

•  Complementing existing sectoral initiatives with other specific initiatives, such as an 

EU initiative on forest fires 

Certain disasters have not yet been addressed at EU level. In particular, building on existing 
measures,  there  is  a  need  to  explore  whether  a  more  comprehensive  EU  approach  to  the 
prevention of forest fires could be implemented.  

An EU initiative (such as a directive) on forest fires and other wild fires would therefore have 
the objectives to cover inter alia requirements for:  

– 

risk mapping and risk analysis to allow for prioritised prevention work; 

36 

OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40-48. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

preventive measures for the Member States to consider in their national prevention 
strategies,  including  awareness  raising,  involvement  of  private  and  public  actors, 
dialogue with citizens; 

a common, reliable statistical fire database37. 

•  Developing framework legislation on prevention  

This would provide an overall framework for prevention and include provisions for building 
the  necessary  links  at  national  level  between  the  relevant  services  and  instruments.  The 
objective  would  be  to  formulate  a  comprehensive  prevention  approach  that  would 
complement and give coherence to the existing sectoral and vertical approaches and reinforce 
the added value of existing Community action. The aim would be to create synergies between 
existing instruments and to strengthen coordination and consistency between them. It would 
provide  a  framework  for  risk  mapping  and  for  devising  national  risk  prevention  strategies. 
This would be complemented by a common knowledge base and targeted funding as well as 
guidelines for developing national risk prevention strategies. 

6. 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE OPTIONS 

This  section  provides  an  impact  assessment  that  is  consistent  with  the  current  stage  of 
development of a comprehensive Community policy on the prevention of disasters. Firstly, it 
focuses on the possible impacts of EU action or inaction. This is intended to inform the basic 
policy decision whether or not to develop an EU strategy on disaster prevention. Secondly, it 
analyses the impacts of the various options for Community action in the four areas identified 
in  chapter  2.  This  aims  at  informing  a  first  round  of  policy  discussion  between  the  EU 
institutions  on  a  wide  range  of  options  that  could  be  further  explored  and  assessed  for 
potential inclusion into such a strategy. 

6.1. 

Baseline: no further EU action on the prevention of disasters 

The future situation with no further EU policies in this area may be one where: 

– 

– 

– 

citizens,  the  environment  and  economic  assets  may  experience  different  prevention 
levels implying different levels of protection within the EU when comparing regions 
with comparable disaster risks; 

the  costs  of  developing  preventive  strategies  and  action  in  Member  States  may  be 
higher  than  expected  in  light  of  the  probable  insufficient  level  of,  for  example, 
experience sharing and knowledge sharing and joint knowledge building; 

the  efficiency  of  prevention  strategies  may  suffer  from  an  insufficient  level  of 
comparability  as  regards  background  information  —  across  regions  that  share  risks 
or affect each others’ risk patterns; 

37 

building on existing initiatives such as the European Forest Fire Information System EFFIS 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

the  cost  efficiency  of  dealing  with  disasters  will  be  far  from  optimised,  and  once 
disasters  strike,  the  costs  will  need  to  be  covered  anyway,  implying  also  a  high 
potential pressure on the EC response mechanisms and the Solidarity Fund; 

finally, the level of disaster prevention and/or the reduction of the effects of disasters 
may be lower than expected. In such a case only a fraction of the potential benefits 
summarised in Annex 3, table 6.1 would be achieved 

Various  studies  show  that  the  damage  and  costs  caused  by  natural  and  man-made  disasters 
could have been avoided by better prevention measures.  

According  to  the  OECD38,  given  that  remediation,  restoration,  and  reconstruction  costs  are 
likely to be considerable (and that damages can be irreversible), there is a strong case for ex 
ante “prevention”. The introduction of measures which reduce the frequency and severity of 
environment-related industrial accidents and natural disasters will often be less than the costs 
of restoration. The World Bank and the US Geological Survey have estimated that the world-
wide economic losses from natural disasters in the 1990s could have been reduced by USD 
280  billion,  if  USD  40  billion  had  been  invested  in  disaster  preparedness,  mitigation  and 
prevention strategies (World Bank, 2004). 

According to the UK Environmental Agency the value of prevention is also significant in so 
far as “for every £1 further we can spend, we would be able to save the country £6 in repair 
costs”39. 

Similarly,  recovery  costs  can  be  extremely  high  since  they  not  only  include  the  expenses 
related to the re-establishment of conditions that existed prior to the disaster, but also cover 
costs  deriving  from  the  disruption  of  economic  and  social  activity  and  loss  of  momentum 
caused by the disaster, part of which is anyway difficult to quantify in monetary terms.  

6.2. 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 

6.2.1. 

Initiative on risk mapping 

Existing situation  

Today, almost all Member States do risk mapping to some extent for selected disaster types. 
In particular, all EU Member States have to develop flood hazard and flood risk maps by 2013 
under the EU Flooding Directive. 

The  EU  Flooding  Directive  (2007/60/EC)  operates  with  a  definition  of  both  flood  hazard 
maps and risk maps as tools for planning and communication, using a stepwise approach. 

According to the Directive, flood hazard maps should cover geographical areas which could 
be flooded. Flood risk maps should show the potential adverse consequences associated with 
flood scenarios. Member States are required to develop their hazard maps and risk maps by 
December  2013.  Flood  hazard  maps,  risk  maps,  and  flood  management  plans  should  all  be 
made  available  to  the  public,  in  order  to  increase  public  awareness,  support  the  process  of 

38 
39 

Costs of inaction on environmental policy challenges: summary report (ENV/EPOC(2007)16/final). 
Mark Tinnion, regional flood risk manager, Environment Agency, cited in ABI 2007. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
prioritising, justifying and targeting investments, and support spatial planning and investment 
plans.  

In  the  private  sector,  the  insurance  and  reinsurance  companies  generally  use  risk  maps  as  a 
tool for assessing risks, identifying risks and risk zones and for assessing potential losses. In 
general,  the  insurance  maps  use  information  from  public  sources.  Some  EU  countries,  e.g. 
Austria, have set up a private public partnership on flood risk zoning and mapping with the 
participation of the insurance industry and public authorities. 

Impact on national prevention policies 

Systematic  pooling  of  information  through  risk mapping  would  contribute  significantly  to  a 
stronger  empirically  founded  knowledge  base.  It  would  generate  vulnerability  and  risk 
assessments  aimed  at  increasing  public  awareness,  supporting  the  process  of  prioritising, 
justifying and targeting the investments and developing sustainable policies and strategies.  

This  option  would  require  extensive  studies  for  defining  the  appropriate  methodologies. 
Whilst on the one hand, it would guarantee a homogeneous approach by the Member States 
and excellent quality of data and information, on the other hand, it requires investments at EU 
and  national  level  in  terms  of  human  and  financial  resources.  At  national  level,  new  efforts 
would have to be made for collecting data and possibly for adapting national data collection 
methods.  

It  is  expected  that  vulnerability  assessments  will  pinpoint  regions  and  areas  that  are  most 
likely  to  be  affected  by  potential  disasters,  thus  providing  the  means  for  prioritising  and 
taking appropriate action which is less costly than recovery. 

Administrative costs at national level 

Risk mapping would have budgetary consequences for public authorities, as they will have to 
make  preliminary  risk  assessments  and  prepare  risk  maps  and  risk  management  plans.  The 
costs  arising  from  such  obligations  would  depend  on  the  size  and  type  of  the  area  to  be 
assessed.  

The costs of preliminary risk assessment and risk mapping would depend on the information 
already  available.  Risk  maps  would  only  have  to  be  developed  where  there  are  potential  or 
reasonably predictable  significant  risks. The costs  of producing risk maps would depend  on 
the decisions made by the Member States on the scale, level of detail and presentation (paper, 
electronic, etc). 

On  a  national  scale,  the  cost  of  producing  flood  risk  maps  available  to  the  public  on  the 
Internet was EUR 55 million for England and Wales. The cost of risk mapping of the Loire 
basin was EUR 3 million. For the Rhine region, much information was already available, and 
as a result, the cost was EUR 0.27 million. The costs of producing flood risk maps under the 
EU Flood Directive has been estimated at EUR 100 to 350 per km2 of river basin. 

Similar  costs  can  be  expected  for  risk  maps  of  other  types  of  risks,  depending  on  the 
information already available.  

Economic impact 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Insurance premiums could be affected by more precise information on risks and vulnerability 
at local levels. This would most likely mean increased premiums in affected or risk areas. 

Access  to  public  information  on  risks  would  enable  the  insurance  industry  to  improve  their 
financial  risk  assessment  and  may  lead  to  a  wider  coverage  of  disaster  insurances  and 
increased cost efficiency.  

Raised  awareness  could  result  in  monetary  benefits  as  people  aware  of  a  potential  risk  are 
inclined  to  be  more  receptive  to  risk  warnings  and  protect  themselves  and  their  property 
accordingly,  e.g.  by  simple  risk  prevention  measures.  In  this  way,  the  public  may  become 
actively  involved  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  disaster  risk  prevention 
measures.  

Environmental impact  

Negative  impacts  of  disasters  on  the  environment  would  be  reduced.  By  mapping  areas  at 
risk,  Member  States  can  prevent  future  activities  that  affect  the  environment  or  adapt  those 
activities to the risks. 

Social impact  

Institutions and the public would be better informed about risks, leading to better resilience.  

6.2.2.  Disaster observatory 

Existing situation  

Today,  all  Member  States  collect  data  in  the  field  of  disaster  prevention,  depending  on  the 
disaster type.  

Some  Member  States  have  worked  specifically  in  the  development  of  scenarios.  In  some 
Member States (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), cross cutting national vulnerability assessments 
have  been  conducted  with  a  view  to  mapping  vulnerabilities  of  society,  assessing  the 
resilience of society and the measures put in place in the field of disaster prevention and civil 
protection40.  In  Portugal,  the  project  “Climate  change  in  Portugal.  Scenarios,  Impact,  and 
Adaptation measures” has led to work on climate scenarios involving prevention and response 
issues. 

Impact on the development of national prevention policies  

The  Disaster  Observatory  would  g  guarantee  smooth  and  easy  access  to  information  for 
citizens and governments alike. It is a value in itself if Member States and relevant actors in 
the private sector gain access  to the same  information  sources, because they will be able to 
pass on information to citizens on the risks in a specific area. 

40 

For instance, the report “ Sweden facing climate change — threats and opportunities” (Commission on 
climate  and  vulnerability,  Sweden’s  Government  Official  Report,  SOU  2007:60)  has  assessed  the 
impact  at  regional  and  local  level  of  global  climate  change,  including  an  assessment  of  costs  and 
benefits to be imposed on Swedish society. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
The establishment of a common knowledge base would stimulate research and development 
at  national  level.  Focused  coordination  of  research  in  the  field  of  disaster  prevention  would 
promote greater resource efficiency. 

For  countries  with  limited  experience  in  dealing  with  a  specific  disaster  type  (flooding, 
drought,  extreme  temperatures  etc.),  a  common  knowledge  base  would  facilitate  the 
introduction  and  dissemination  of  new  preventive  measures,  methods  etc.,  e.g.  through  the 
exchange of best practices. Common knowledge in the field of disaster prevention would also 
assist in accelerating prevention efforts and reducing vulnerability according to best practice 
standards throughout the EU. 

A potential negative impact is the misuse of information e.g. for criminal purposes rather than 
for  prevention  purposes.  Another  challenge  would  be  for  Member  States  to  agree  on  the 
appropriate  type  and  amount  of  information  to  be  provided  to  citizens  in  order  to  avoid  -
creating an unnecessary and unjustified perception of insecurity. 

Administrative costs at EU level  

At the EU level, setting up the observatory within existing structures would require specific 
financial  and  human  resources.  The  staff  of  the  Observatory  would  be  composed  of  2-5 
members. A yearly budget of 0.5 to 1.0 million €  for specific studies could be covered by the 
Civil Protection Financial Instrument. 

Administrative costs at national level  

While  the  EU  intervention  would  not  involve  a  demand  for  fundamentally  new  structures, 
there may be a need to enhance coordination and cooperation at Member State level.  

At Member State level, the need seems to be for a small cross-cutting entity that can draw on 
existing  organisational  structures,  liaise  with  the  Observatory,  and  forward  data  and 
knowledge to national actors. Depending on the existing structures, the organisational set-up 
and coordination mechanisms in each Member State would need a single staff member and a 
very limited yearly budget. It is also inevitable that costs will arise for the identification and 
comparability of data. These costs will however relate to the initial investments. In the longer 
term, efficiency gains can be expected, offsetting the initial costs.  

Economic impact  

The  enhanced  knowledge  base  would  have  an  impact  on  consumer  behaviour  related  to 
buildings/houses  since  precise  risk  information  could  affect  house  prices  in  areas  with  a 
medium to high disaster risk profile in terms of flooding or forest fires. The same conclusion 
would apply to land used for agricultural or industrial production. Insurance premiums could 
be affected by more precise information on risks and vulnerability at local levels. 

The economic impact may also depend on the financial conditions for making the information 
available for stakeholders: free vs paying information. 

Environmental impact  

The  Disaster  Observatory  encourages  a  better  coordinated  and  more  integrated  approach  to 
prevention, mitigating the negative impacts of disasters on the environment. The coordination 

EN 

29 

   EN 

with other EU sectoral policies would not only ensure that risk-related measures do not affect 
the  environment  negatively,  but  also  that  measures  taken  have  positive  effects  for  the 
environment.  

Social impact  

The  enhanced  knowledge  base  would  impact  positively  on  restoring  a  strong  prevention 
culture, where citizens take appropriate preventive measures.  

6.2.3.  Launch  projects  under  the  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument  (CPFI)  for  the 
development  of  common  methodologies  for  data  acquisition  and  information 
generation on disasters in the EU 

This option would imply an increase in the share of CPFI funds utilised for prevention. Given 
the time necessary to set up and complete such action, this option is likely to generate results 
slowly, which would limit its benefits during the first years. The impact of project results at 
national  level  will  also  depend  on  the  Member  States’  willingness  to  integrate  such  results 
into the national frameworks.  

In the long run, this should enhance comparability of data for cross-border hazards evaluation 
and foster cooperation on disaster prevention. Furthermore, it will help to establish European 
networks of expertise. 

6.3. 

Improved  linking  of  actors  and  sectoral  policies  throughout  the  disaster 
management cycle  

6.3.1.  Development of best practices and guidelines involving prevention aspects  

The  production  of  such  guidance  would  require  human  and  financial  resources  at  EU  level 
and the participation of Member State and stakeholder experts. However this would represent 
limited costs. Depending on the interest of the Member States it might significantly improve 
the lessons learnt after disaster, and the links between prevention, preparedness, and response 
actors.  

6.3.2.  Multisectoral steering group  

Existing situation 

Member States have various forms of cross-cutting committees at national, regional, or local 
level. The two exploratory studies have however indicated a more widely recognised need for 
enhanced horizontal coordination and collaboration.  

Impact on the development of national prevention policies  

Setting up a multisectoral steering group would enhance the links between national services to 
catalyse national disaster prevention approaches and create links between measures taken in 
different  phases  of  the  disaster  management  cycle  (prevention,  preparedness,  response  and 
recovery). The steering group would contribute towards strengthening the links between civil 
protection, on one hand, and environmental management on the other. It might also promote 
cross-cutting  coordination  at  national  level  to  ensure  effective  information  flows.  It  can 
encourage a continuous momentum on disaster prevention policies.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

The interaction between different departments would also have beneficial impacts in terms of 
improved  understanding  of  the  issues  and  options  for  action  regarding  the  prevention  of 
disasters.  

Administrative costs at EU level  

At  EU  level,  the  setting-up  of  a  steering  group  and  a  small  secretariat  would  imply  the 
allocation  of  financial  and  human  resources.  The  steering  group  would  be  composed  of  1-2 
employees. A yearly budget of 0.25 to 0.5 million € for conferences and meetings could be 
covered by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument.  

Administrative costs at national level 

At Member State level,  the setting-up  of  a steering  group will  be limited  to participation in 
meetings and conferences and some national communication to national actors. While the EU 
intervention  would  not  involve  a  demand  for  fundamentally  new  structures,  there  may  be  a 
need to enhance coordination and cooperation at Member State level.  

Economic impact  

A multisectoral steering group would provide a common platform for determining the types 
of natural disasters and the areas where a significant potential risk to human lives and health, 
the  environment  and  economic  activity  can  be  expected.  The  use  of  an  open  method  of 
coordination would provide member States with sufficient flexibility to schedule and budget 
the  measures  recommended  in  this  framework  according  to  their  specific  priorities  and 
available  resources.  This  will  increase  general  acceptance  of  the  potential  economic  costs 
involved.  

Environmental impact 

Through  a  more  integrated  approach  to  prevention,  the  negative  impacts  of  disasters  on  the 
environment  may  be  significantly  reduced.  Member  States  would  be  able  to  prevent  future 
activities that affect the environment or adapt those activities to the risks. 

Closer  links  among  the  Member  States  as  well  as  within  the  Commission  would  not  only 
ensure  that  risk-related  measures  do  not  affect  the  environment  negatively,  but  also  that 
measures taken have positive effects for the environment. 

Social impact  

A  multisectoral  steering  group  open  to  the  various  stakeholders  from  the  Member  States 
would  increase  knowledge  and  awareness,  and  therefore  ensure  ownership  and  social 
acceptance of the prevention measures proposed and agreed in this framework.  

6.4. 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters  

Specific options to improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters include:  

EN 

31 

   EN 

6.4.1. 

Specific funding 

The  creation  of  an  additional  instrument  would  on  the  one  hand  enable  specific  funding  of 
prevention  policies.  On  the  other  hand,  as  there  is  a  wide  variety  of  potential  prevention 
activities  ranging  from  exchanges  of  good  practices  to  infrastructure  projects,  this  option 
would require decisions on prioritising prevention of disasters over other objectives.  

Existing situation 

Today,  no  clear  overview  is  available  on  what  is  being  spent  in  the  area  of  prevention,  as 
delineation  and  interpretations  of  preventive  action  vary  among  EU  funds  and  programmes. 
The  impact  of  natural  disasters  on  the  Community  budget  was  analysed  in  a  European 
Parliament41 study for the period 2003-2005, though studies are not available for the ongoing 
budgetary period.  

Problems regarding the use of EU funds have been described in paragraph 3.3.3.  

Existing EU funds are described in Annex 2. 

Impact on the development of national prevention policies  

The  impact  of  such  a  fund  could  be  to  fill  the  gaps  at  Member  State  level,  especially  for 
countries  that  find  it  difficult  to  give  priority  to  disaster  prevention,  in  the  light  of  the 
expected increase in the frequency and severity of disasters, particularly natural ones. Specific 
funding  would  thus  enhance  and  accelerate  the  efforts  of  all  Member  States  inducing 
European  cohesion.  To  avoid  overlaps,  specific  provisions  coordinating  the  instrument  with 
existing funding mechanisms would be needed. 

Administrative costs at EU level  

In  order  to  develop  more  specific  guidelines  for  EU  funding  in  the  area  of  prevention, 
sufficient technical resources will need to be set aside.  

Administrative costs at national level  

An  increase  in  funding  would  have  budgetary  consequences  for  public  authorities  as  they 
would have to set aside sufficient resources for administration and implementation, compared 
to what they have in place already. As a first step, providing better guidance on how to focus 
current  Community  funding  on  prevention  would  probably  involve  a  smaller  burden  on 
Member States. However, in the medium to long run, the cost-benefit of increased focus on 
the area of prevention would pay off. 

Economic impact  

An increase in dedicated funding may raise the overall funding burden for Member States or 
may require rebalancing the funding priorities between sectors and activities.  

41 

Impact  of  natural  disasters  on  the  Community  budget,  2003-2005  study,  European  Parliament, 
Directorate General for internal policies, budgetary support unit, budgetary affairs. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
Better guidance on funding of preventive action would provide a better common platform for 
prioritising  the  types  of  potential  disasters  that  should  be  addressed  and  supported  with  EU 
funding, hence a more effective use of resources.  

Environmental impact  

Negative  consequences  of  disasters  on  the  environment  would  be  reduced  if  more  funding 
was provided. Member States could thus improve the way they prepare future activities that 
affect the environment or adapt those activities to the risks. 

Social impact  

Increasing  the  funding  for  prevention  and  better  targeting  of  the  funds  towards  prevention 
would also result in increased focus on the issue and more public awareness.  

6.4.2.  Guidance on use of funds 

The  production  of  such  guidance  would  require  human  and  financial  resources  at  EU  level 
and the participation of Member State and stakeholder experts. However this would represent 
limited costs. Depending on the interest of the Member States it might significantly improve 
the use of EU  funds for disaster prevention. It would require better coordination among the 
various funds and programmes at both EU and Member State level, including a clarification 
of  their  respective  scopes,  in  order  to  ensure  better  utilisation  of  budget  resources  and 
consistency with the priorities defined by the Member States and regions42. 

6.4.3.  Enhancing prevention provisions in EU funding instruments 

Enhancing  prevention  provisions  in  EU  funding  instruments  would  deliver  improvement  in 
the  use  of  EU  funds.  However,  given  the  current  stage  of  programming  for  the  use  of  the 
structural  and  other  funds,  the  impact  of  this  option  is  likely  to  be  delayed  to  the  next 
financing  cycle.  Its  implementation  may  require  additional  work  for  Member  States  with 
regard  to  disaster  prevention  planning,  and  for  the  Commission  in  so  far  as  the  planning  of 
additional measures is concerned.  

6.5. 

Targeting specific risks and building on existing initiatives 

6.5.1. 

Improving the targeting of disaster prevention in existing EU instruments 

The  potential  for  improving  sectoral  legislation  should  be  addressed  as  part  of  its  review 
cycle.  For  example,  by  strengthening  the  risk  analysis  and  risk  prevention  elements  in  the 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive  (EIA  Directive),  it  should  be  possible  to  focus 
more thoroughly on risk prevention.  

Furthermore, the risk prevention approach would be streamlined into Member States' policies 
and plans, improving the quality and consistency of policies. This would cause only limited 
impacts  in  terms  of  administrative  burden  or  disruption  of  existing  national  administrative 
structures. 

42 

EN 

Summary  of 
IPOL/B/AGRI/NT/2006_02. 

the  Public  Hearing  “Natural  disasters:  how  should  Europe  respond?  20  March  2006, 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
Moreover, the review of the SEVESO II Directive is ongoing. It focuses primarily on aligning 
the  requirements  of  the  directive  to  the  new  chemicals  legislation  (GHS)  and  on  the 
administrative burden linked to the enforcement of the directive. Where appropriate, placing 
the  amendment  of  the  directive  into  a  broader  prevention  process  (including  man-made  and 
natural disaster causes) could be considered, in order to complement and give consistency to 
the  prevention  measures  provided  for  under  the  directive.  Impact  assessment  of  possible 
changes would be part of a separate exercise. 

6.5.2.  Complementing existing sectoral initiatives with other specific initiatives, such as an 

EU initiative on forest fires  

As  various  sectors  possess  particular  experience,  expertise  and  requirements,  a  sectoral 
approach seems to be needed in order to address specific disasters. On the other hand, these 
sector-based initiatives cover a limited number of the multiple hazards to which EU member 
States are exposed.  

Existing situation  

A number of EU legal instruments with elements of risk prevention already exist today, and 
new initiatives are expected. Any new sectoral initiative will have to take into consideration 
the approach followed under the EU Floods Directive43 and the SEVESO Directive 44.  

In particular, in so far as forest fires are concerned, measures and specific regulations to help 
Member  States  to  prevent,  combat  and  mitigate  the  effects  of  forest  fires  have  been 
implemented  at  Community  level,  in  line  with  Community  competence  in  forestry 
(subsidiarity, shared responsibility). 

The  EU  Forestry  Strategy45  (Council  Resolution  of  15  December  1998)  and  the  EU  Forest 
Action Plan46 (adopted in June 2006) have outlined the current policy framework, including 
the  further  development  of  the  European  Forest  Fire  Information  System  EFFIS.  The  five-
year  Action  plan  consists  of  a  number  of  key  actions  that  the  Commission  proposes  to 
implement jointly with Member States. In particular, the action plan indicates that 

- with support from the EAFRD and Life + instrument, Member States may support forest fire 
prevention measures; 

- with support from the EAFRD and the ERDF, Member States may enhance investments for 
natural hazard prevention and safety.  

Impact on the development of national prevention policies  

Specific  initiatives  on  disasters  are  a  solid  basis  for  political  prioritisation  and  decision, 
therefore accelerating efforts being made by the Member States.  

43 
44 
45 
46 

Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. 
Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. 
OJ C56, 26.2.1999. 
COM(2006)302 final 

EN 

34 

   EN 

                                                 
Assuming that the catalogue of prevention measures will include awareness-raising aimed at 
specific  target  groups47,  educational  measures  and  the  inclusion  of  private  sector  actors  and 
civil  society  in  prevention  initiatives,  the  combined,  active  participation  of  several  actors 
would contribute to speeding up resilience-building at national level.  

Administrative costs at national level  

The additional administrative burden linked to a dedicated initiative on forest fires (such as a 
directive)  and  placed  upon  member  States  would  be  low  when  compared  to  the  potential 
benefits of preventing such fires.  

Economic impact  

A range of economic impacts is related to forest fires. These include the loss of human and 
animal lives, direct fire suppression costs, short and long term effects on health, production 
loss  in  the  farming  and  forestry  sector  and  related  sectors,  direct  material  losses.  All  these 
factors  can  slow  down  or  discontinue  economic  activity  in  the  affected  areas.  In  the  worst 
cases,  they  can  totally  disrupt  economic  and  human  activity  in  such  areas.  Increasing 
prevention efforts would obviously help reduce fire suppression costs48. 

By helping to conserve natural resources and economic activity, prevention efforts would also 
mitigate the impact of fires on local and national economies.  

The forestry sector and related industries represent an important economic sector in countries 
such as Portugal where they are responsible for 3.4% of GDP (1993 figures49). Thus, loss of 
forest  of  the  magnitude  which  Portugal  experienced  in  2003  and  2005  has  an  important 
bearing on the economy. 

According  to  the  Office  National  des  Forêts  (FR),  the  cost  of  burned  forests  is  9 000  €  per 
hectare.  Such  a  figure  is  based  solely  upon  expenses  arising  from,  extinction,  cleaning  and 
replanting. For 500 000 hectares (average year in the EU) this represents 4 500 million € of 
damage. 

Preventive action reducing the number of hectares burnt by 10% would therefore represent a 
saving of 450 million €.  

Environmental impact  

The  magnitude  of  forest  areas  burnt  in  the southern  part  of Europe between 2000 and  2007 
caused  loss  of  biodiversity  in  NATURA  2000  sites.  More  effective  EU  preventive  action 
would have helped to minimise such loss. Since forest fires also contribute to CO2 emissions 
(e.g.  in  Portugal  a  yearly  average  of  1.6  million tonnes of carbon was emitted due to forest 

47 

48 
49 

A  recent  study  on  forest  fires  conducted  for  the  European  Parliament  (forest  fires:  causes  and 
contributing factors in Europe. Study conducted for the European Parliament, February 2008) states that 
an  EU  policy  should  be  adopted  to  “encourage  forest  owners  to  share  the  responsibility  through 
collective  organisation  with  proper  guidance,  so  that  both  small  and  large  owners  contribute  to  the 
reduction of fire risk”. 
WILDFIRE 2007 meeting in Sevilla confirmed the increasing fire suppression costs 
Climate Change in Portugal — scenarios, impacts and adaptation measures (SIAM) 2001 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
fires  between  2002  and  2006)50,  a  decrease  in  their  occurrence  will  positively  contribute  to 
reducing such emissions and will ensure the maintenance of the carbon retention capacity of 
forests.  

Social impact  

A FAO51 study52 states that “The estimated social and economic damages caused by fires are 
enormous, although largely un-quantified”. 

Preventive measures that can reduce casualties and minimise harm and damage to individuals 
and communities can be expected to have a positive impact on society. 

Ensuring  the  active  participation  of  local  communities,  industry,  businesses  and  NGOs  in 
preventive  action,  in  addition  to  the  commitment  of  the  public  sector,  for  example,  would 
boost the social impact of forest fire prevention. The case of Portugal has demonstrated that 
involving different sectors of society motivates citizens' groups and the private sector to show 
social responsibility in relation to forest fire prevention53. 

6.5.3.  Framework legislation on prevention 

Natural  and  manmade  disasters  do  not  always  fall  within  one  category  which  can  be 
addressed through a single sector-specific approach. Futhermore, disasters may be caused by 
chain reactions, and different combined factors may affect their occurrence and severity. 

Existing situation  

Today, only a few Member States pursue an integrated approach to prevention (for instance 
United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark; France, Germany, and Sweden). 

Impact on the development of national prevention policies 

Such  legislation  would  require  setting  up  new  systems  in  the  Member  States,  or  adjusting 
existing ones, to address the issues of disaster prevention, which may have significant impacts 
in  terms  of  reorganising  national  administrations.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  have  the 
potential for maximising the beneficial impacts of disaster prevention, improving in particular 
coordination and cooperation among Member States using the same set of approaches and risk 
assessments.  

Administrative costs at national level  

Since a framework legislation would encompass an integrated approach on risk mapping, the 
administrative costs impact assessment, in paragraph 6.2.1, is also of relevance.  

The implementation of framework legislation would have budgetary consequences for public 
authorities  as  they  would  have  to  transpose  the  regulatory  framework  in  the  form  of  risk 

50 

51 
52 
53 

Forest fires: causes and contributing factors in Europe. Study conducted for the European Parliament, 
February 2008 
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 
Fire Management Working Paper FM18E, FAO 2006 
Member States approaches towards Prevention Policy — a Critical Analysis. COWI, March 2008 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
assessments,  risk  maps  and  risk  management  plans  into  national  legislation.  It  would  have 
financial  consequences  on  private  stakeholders  at  implementation  level,  possibly  involving 
investment  shifts  or  increases.  In  general,  the  costs  arising  from  such  obligations  would 
depend on the size and type of the area to be assessed. A transparent coordination mechanism 
at national level will also be needed. Such a mechanism may require additional resources, in 
particular staffing. 

The costs of transposing and implementing the framework legislation at Member State level 
would depend on work already done and existing national legislation. Some Member States 
may already have similar procedures or elements of such a procedure in place, including some 
central coordinating body in charge of implementing a similar type of framework legislation.  

The  costs  of  producing  national  legislation  would  depend  on  the  decisions  made  by  the 
Member  States  on  the  scale,  level  of  detail  of  legislation,  and  on  the  policy  choices  of 
Member States within the overall legislative framework, which is not detailed at this stage. In 
addition, some administrative costs would be required for monitoring and enforcement tasks. 

Costs can be reduced if the framework legislation is flexible, leaving EU Member States with 
room to focus on risks which are particularly important and allowing each Member State to 
use existing data, methodologies and procedures for hazard analysis, hazard and risk mapping 
and risk management. 

Economic impact 

A  framework  legislation  would  provide  a  common  platform  for  determining  the  types  of 
natural disasters and the areas where a significant potential risk to human health and lives, the 
environment and economic activity can be expected.  

Environmental impact  

Through  a  more  integrated  approach  to  prevention,  the  negative  impacts  of  disasters  on  the 
environment  may  be  significantly  reduced.  Member  States  would  be  able  to  prevent  future 
activities that affect the environment or adapt such activities to the risks. 

Closer  links  with  other  EU  legislation  and  overall  prevention  framework  legislation  would 
ensure not only that risk-related measures do not affect the environment negatively, but also 
that measures taken have positive effects for the environment.  

Social impact  

From a broader perspective, framework legislation setting out measures for prevention would 
contribute to reinforcing the level of protection of EU citizens.  

Furthermore, it would reduce the health risks related to natural and man-made disasters, e.g. 
psychological distress, by decreasing their likelihood and impact.  

Such legislation would also have a positive impact on the functioning of the labour market, as 
companies and industries would become less affected or disturbed by major disasters. 

The public would become better informed about risks, and the outcome would be increased 
public awareness. This could result in monetary benefits as people aware of a potential risk 

EN 

37 

   EN 

are inclined to be more receptive to risk warnings and protect themselves and their property 
accordingly,  e.g.  by  simple  risk  reduction  measures.  In  this  way,  the  public  may  become 
actively  involved  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  disaster  risk  prevention 
measures. 

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

7.1. 

Comparing the generic impacts of EU action and no EU action 

At  this  stage  of  the  policy  cycle,  policy-makers  are  confronted  with  the  initial  question  of 
whether  or  not  to  develop  specific  EU  initiatives  to  enhance  disaster  prevention  in  the  EU. 
Table  7.1  in  Annex  4  provides  information  on  the  generic  impacts  of  developing  or  not 
developing such a policy. 

The  table  demonstrates  that  the  main  impacts  of  the  absence  of  EU  action  are  potential 
divergences in the protection of citizens, the environment and property from disasters across 
the  EU.  EU  action  is  expected  to  contribute  to  a  better  protection  of  such  aspects.  The 
financial and administrative burden at EU and national levels is expected to be relatively low 
compared to the benefits of EU action. The specifics and the magnitude of the impacts of EU 
action  will  depend  on  the  area  in  which  such  action  takes  place,  on  the  specific  options 
selected and on the administrative implementation mode. 

7.2. 

Build a consistent knowledge base on disasters 

The  table  7.2  in  Annex  4  compares  the  impact  of  the  options  for  building  a  consistent 
knowledge base on disasters.  

The  urgent  need  for  action  regarding  the  prevention  of  disasters  and  the  importance  of 
building a sound knowledge base require that action be taken swiftly and without delay. The 
creation of an inventory of information on disasters at EU level, building upon existing data 
collected by environmental data centres, is likely to deliver quicker, more comprehensive and 
more  consistent  results  than  the  rather  lengthy  process  of  financing  individual  projects. 
Nevertheless,  on  specific  areas,  studies  and  cooperation  projects  involving  Member  States 
could be carried out under various EU instruments. 

7.3. 

Link the various actors and sectoral policies 

Table  7.3  in  Annex  4  compares  the  impacts  of  options  for  linking  the  various  actors  and 
sectoral policies.  

In  the  short  term,  a  European  network  composed  of  representatives  of  the  various  national 
departments  could  provide  a  flexible  option  that  could  adjust  to  the  different  needs  and 
resources of Member States whilst ensuring EU-wide coordination and consistency. It would 
have  potential  for  delivering  benefits  at  relatively  low,  though  not  negligible  costs,  would 
enhance understanding of disaster prevention issues at all levels, and would provide a basis 
for promoting this policy area further. 

At  the  same  time,  the  development  of  guidelines  and  lessons  learnt  on  prevention  aspects 
could have immediate benefits at a relatively limited cost at EU and national level.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

7.4. 

Improve the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 

Table 7.4 in Annex 4 compares the impacts of the options for improving the use of EU funds 
for preventing disasters.  

Setting  up  a  specific  funding  instrument  for  prevention could  lead to overlaps with  existing 
instruments  if  it  is  not  well  designed.  Enhancing  the  profile  of  prevention  in  existing 
instruments  appears  to  balance  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  a  more  appropriate  way. 
Given the urgency for action on disaster prevention, work should begin immediately via the 
development  of  guidelines  encouraging  Member  States  to  make  better  use  of  Community 
funds for the prevention of disasters. This would also provide a basis for subsequently explore 
the need to develop provisions on disaster prevention in the context of the review cycles of 
the relevant funding instruments. 

7.5. 

Target specific risks building on existing initiatives 

Table 7.5 in Annex 4 compares the options for filling the gaps in existing initiatives.  

The EU has adopted a specific directive for flooding, which is one of the major categories of 
disasters. Further specific initiatives (such as a forest fires directive) could be considered for 
other types of disasters. However, the scope for such initiatives appears to be limited to forest 
and other wild fires. 

Integrating disaster prevention in the review process of relevant legislation is likely to bring 
benefits  by  logically  complementing  the  prevention-preparedness-response-recovery  cycle. 
Regarding industrial accidents, the ongoing review of the SEVESO Directive will assess the 
effectiveness of the Directive in relation to prevention. It will be important to assist Member 
States in the implementation of the existing directive.  

In the long term, the development of an integrated legislation on the prevention of disasters 
may become workable. In the meantime, the integration of disaster prevention in the review 
process  of  relevant  legislation  is  likely  to  reinforce  the  benefits  expected  from  prevention 
action. 

7.6. 

Conclusions on the comparison 

7.6.1. 

Should the EU develop an EU strategy on disaster prevention? 

This  analysis  suggests  that  such  a  strategy  would  be  instrumental  in  reducing  the  impact  of 
disasters  within  the  EU,  in  terms  of  human  losses,  destroyed  property  and  degraded 
environment, by reducing the disparities regarding the protection of people, the economy and 
the environment from the effects of disasters, by increasing the general level of awareness and 
protection among decision-makers and the public, and by promoting best practice. Moreover, 
existing  experience  suggests  that  investments  in  disaster  prevention  are  cost  effective  since 
they appear to be significantly lower that the cost of recovery. An EU initiative regarding the 
prevention of disasters should include measures addressing four areas for action: 

– 

– 

building a consistent knowledge base on disasters; 

linking the various actors and policies; 

EN 

39 

   EN 

– 

– 

improving the use of EU funds for disaster prevention; 

Better targeting of specific risks, building on existing initiatives 

At this early stage of policy-making, the Commission considers that adopting the baseline or 
“do-nothing” scenario would not sufficiently reduce the impact of disasters and ensure a fair 
level of protection for all EU citizens. 

7.6.2.  What are the available options for inclusion in the strategy? 

A  series  of  plausible  options  has  been  identified.  They  cover  the  following  four  areas  for 
action and, depending on the level of ambition, they may be combined:  

In a short to medium-term perspective: 

– 

– 

Accompanying measures such as the inclusion of the disaster prevention issue in the 
review cycle of relevant items of EU legislation, for example the Seveso Directive. 

Soft options covering the building of the knowledge base, the linking of policies and 
the  improvement  of  the  use  of  EU  funds  through  the  provision  of  guidance.  This 
process could be guided by a European network composed of representatives of the 
various national departments concerned. It may require resources at EU and national 
levels. 

In a medium to long-term perspective:  

– 

– 

The  amendment  of  existing  funding  instruments  may  improve  the  consistency  and 
effectiveness of EU funding for the prevention of disasters. The creation of a specific 
financial  instrument  for  disaster  prevention  does  not  seem  to  be  appropriate  at  this 
stage because of the significant efforts it would require at EU and national level. 

Specific  measures  such  as  integrated  instruments  addressing  risk  mapping  and 
disaster  prevention  in  general,  or  vertical  instruments  addressing  specific  disasters 
(e.g. forest fires). These might be more effective in reducing the negative impacts of 
disasters but would require significant effort at EU and national levels.  

After  the  initial  round  of  policy  discussions,  and  before  any  combination  of  the 
abovementioned options can be inserted into the final strategy, thus becoming the subject of 
concrete proposals for action, a detailed impact assessment must be undertaken . 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

At this early stage of policy development, where no final decision will be taken regarding the 
selection of specific options, monitoring and evaluation arrangements do not need to be made. 
However, a number of the options considered in this impact assessment address the lack of a 
knowledge  base,  which  would  be  necessary  for  any  monitoring  of  disasters  and  their 
prevention. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 Annex I: Available statistics and reference graphs on the number of disasters in EU-27 and their costs for the 2000-2008 period (EMDAT)54 

Table 1: Number of natural, hydro meteorological and technical disasters in EU 27 2000-2008 

AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DK  EE  FI  FR  DE  EL  HU 

IE 

IT  LV  LT  LU  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SK  SI  ES  SE  UK  Total 

Drought 

Earthquake 

Epidemic 

Extreme Temperature 

Flood 

Industrial Accident 

Misc Accident 

Slides 

Transport Accident 

Volcano 

Wild Fires 

Wind Storm 

0 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

4 

6 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

1 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

2 

11 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

Total 

15 

15 

23 

7 

13 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

1 

2 

4 

0 

4 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

4 

2 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

3 

1 

18 

5 

14 

8 

1 

12 

0 

0 

2 

0 

7 

0 

0 

1 

6 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

2 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

12 

3 

0 

14 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

1 

4 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

13 

14 

4 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

4 

4 

2 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

7 

1 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

9 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

4 

29 

6 

1 

8 

4 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

6 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

2 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3 

7 

11 

15 

68 

13 

151 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

7 

15 

25 

2 

79 

1 

22 

98 

2 

53 

35 

40 

19 

7 

42 

6 

11 

20 

16 

54 

13 

5 

43 

5 

29 

494 

54 

See footnote 7  

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Table 02: Number of deaths caused by natural, hydro-meteorological, geological and technological disasters in EU 27, 2000-2008 (EM-DAT) 

AT 

BE 

BG  CY  CZ  DK  EE 

FI 

FR  DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU  MT  NL 

PL 

PT  RO 

SK  SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

Total 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

30 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

31 

11 

19 

20886 9368  43 

581 

0 

20104 76 

20 

170 

0 

1965 

728 

2737  228 

1 

289  15146 0 

302 

75583 

Drought 

Earthquake 

Epidemic 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Extreme 
Temperature 

350 

2117  27  9 

433 

0 

3 

Flood 

13 

2 

52  0 

25 

0 

0 

Industrial 
Accident 

0 

23 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Misc Accident 

12 

Slides 

13 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

44 

29 

15 

44 

0 

93 

26 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

Transport 
Accident 

Volcano 

Wild Fires 

Wind Storm 

155 

11 

0 

31  19 

0 

0 

24 

204 

127 

394 

94 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10  0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

8 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

79 

0 

0 

52 

81 

5 

16 

Total 

550 

2160  91  40  485 

6 

25 

24 

21331 9631  536 

692 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

55 

0 

0 

19 

4 

0 

0 

0 

417 

0 

0 

11 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

29 

7 

198 

4 

0 

35 

0 

15 

524 

0 

0 

33 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

45 

65 

70 

10 

11 

0 

18 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

115 

14 

430 

0 

17 

20 

102  0 

32 

40 

45 

11 

0 

346 

0 

31 

2103 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

31 

0 

0 

11 

30 

4 

29 

0 

6 

2 

0 

0 

6 

0 

23 

25 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

167 

53 

353 

20644 76 

45 

190 

102  2021 

917 

2889  524 

35 

296  15595 8 

426 

79342 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Table 03: Total costs in thousands USD caused by natural, hydro-meteorological, geological and technological disasters in EU 27, 2000-2008 (EM_DAT) 

AT 

BE 

BG  CY  CZ 

DK 

EE 

F
I

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

L
U 

M
T

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

Total 

100000 0 

0 

0 

225573 0  0  0 

1338136  500000  0 

0 

0 

Drought 

0 

Earth-quake  0 

Epidemic 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Extreme 
Temperature 

280000  0 

50 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Flood 

3100000  0 

458000 0 

2480000  0 

Industrial 
Accident 

Misc 
Accident 

Slides 

Transport 
Accident 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Volcano 

0 

Wild Fires 

0 

100000 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20054  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 0 

12000 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 4400000  1950000 

3000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1857352  0 

0 

0 

4400000  0 

0 2822350  11820000  605659 

138000 0 

9601000  0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 10000 

0 

1750000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  0  0 

0  0  0 

0 

0 

10000  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  0  100000  0 

150000 80000  880000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2163709 

1879352 

0 

12243050 

0  0  0 

700000 0 

1548790  9000 

5000 

513285 

0 

14462150  48263234 

0  0  0 

0 

0  0  256000  0 

0  0  0 

0  0  0 

0  0  0 

0  0  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3380000  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9960407  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2712000  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10060407 

256000 

0 

0 

3100 

7872054 

Wind Storm  425000  455000 0 

10000 170000  1400000  130000 0 251050 

8560000 

340000 

10000  100000 175000 

325000  30000  0  0  850000  100150 0 

0 

383300 392000 72000 

2800000 3800050 

20778550 

Total 

3805000  555000 478104 10000 2650000  1400000  130000 0 7483400  22342000  2698659 

248000 100000 16036452 325000  255573 0  0  1206000 800150 4718136  2048790  542300 487000 14137692 2800000 18262200  103519456 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
 
EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
Annex 2: Risk prevention funds 

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)  

Risk Prevention (natural and technological risks) is highlighted as one of the priorities of the ERDF for the 
2007-2013 period. The Regulation on European Regional Development Fund55 states that the prevention 
of risks is a priority, notably within the convergence (art 4.5), regional competitiveness and employment 
(art 5.2e) and European territorial cooperation objectives (art. 6.1b, 6.2b, and 6.3 a).  

Between  2007  and  2013,  around  €5.8  billion  will  be  avai lable  from  Cohesion  Policy  programmes  for 
management and prevention of risks in relation to various types of disasters, including forest fires. 

An increase in funding for actions and initiatives related to prevention is already foreseen in a number of 
areas.  For  instance,  the  Community  Strategic  Guidelines  for  the  Cohesion  Policy  2007-2013  stress  the 
need  to  take  risk  preventive  measures  through  improved  management  of  natural  resources,  targeted 
research and more innovative public management policies56. 

Some initial assessment has been made in a study on a Strategic Evaluation of the Structural and Cohesion 
Funds for 2007-2013, addressing natural risk hazards57. The study found that only 10 out of 15 countries 
had  identified  management  of  flood  risks  and  3  out  of  15  countries  had  mentioned  forest  fires  as  main 
priorities for funding.  

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)  

Besides  other  rural  development  measures  that  may  indirectly  contribute  to  the  objective  of  disaster 
prevention,  the  rural  development  regulation  provides  support  for  natural  disaster  prevention,  related  to 
agricultural  and  forestry  production  potential.  The  EAFRD  can  support  measures  to  restore  agricultural 
production  potential  damaged  by  natural  disasters  and  measures  to  introduce  appropriate  prevention 
schemes. For the programming period 2007-2013, € 732 m illion of the EAFRD budget (€ 1.48 billion for 
the total public expenditure) have been planned for this measure.  

In  addition,  1.55  €  billion  of  the  EAFRD  budget  (2.47  €  billion  for  tota l  public  expenditure)  have  been 
earmarked for the measure “Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions”. As the last 
rural development programmes have been approved in 2008, it is too early to assess the implementation of 
these measures.  

In the context of the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commission has proposed to 
increase the amount of funding transferred from the first pillar (market and income policy) to the second 
pillar  (rural  development).  The  funding  obtained  this  way  could  be  used  by  Member  States  to  reinforce 
rural development programmes, notably in the field of climate change. One of the operations that Member 
States  could  select  to  address  as  a  climate  change  priority  could  be  forest  fire  prevention.  This  would 
already  contribute  to  the  objective  of  enhancing  the  profile  of  prevention  in  the  review  of  existing 
instruments.  

The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) 

55 
56 
57 

EC Regulation N° 1080/2006 of the European Parliament 
COM (2005) 0299, 5.7.2005 
Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Risk  Prevention under Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period of 2007-2013, No 
2005.CE.16.0.AT.016. Synthesis Report, Directorate General Regional Policy, November 7, 2006 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The EUSF provides financial support for emergency measures in the event of a major natural disaster. In 
principle, payments from the Fund are limited to financing emergency operations undertaken by the public 
authorities  to  alleviate  non-insurable  damage  (such  as  rescue  services,  putting  infrastructures  back  in 
operation,  provisional  accommodation,  cleaning  up,  etc).  Private  damage  and  income  losses,  including 
agricultural damage, may not be compensated.  

Member States must specify the prevention measures carried out in their implementation reports.  

In  April  2005,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  revised  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  to  the 
Parliament and to the Council. One of the key elements is an enlarged scope, enabling the Community to 
react to disasters other than those having natural origin. The proposal was very favourably received by the 
European Parliament but so far there has been no progress in the Council. 

Examples of planned spending on risk prevention and management 

The data is based on information published by the Directorate General for Regional Policy (source: Info-
Regio) and gives examples of planned spending on risk prevention and management in the framework of 
the  Operational  Programmes  on  Environment  and  Sustainable  Development  under  the  Convergence 
objective, co-funded by ERDF and Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013:  

-  Greece  has  identified  prevention  and  tackling  of  environmental  risks  as  a  priority.  The  objective  is  to 
support and improve the efficiency of public administration in dealing with environmental risks by setting 
up  a  civil  protection  network  focusing  on  prevention,  immediate  reaction  and  prompt  intervention.  To 
meet this objective, anti-flood, anti-fire and anti-earthquake actions are defined. Special attention will be 
given to major technological accidents.  

For  the  action  “prevention  and  tackling  of  environmental  risks  (including  waste)”,  the  budgets  are 
estimated as follows: 

EU contribution: €32 million 

National Public contribution: €8 million 

Total Public contribution: €40 million 

-  The  Czech  Republic  focused  on  reducing  industrial  pollution,  reducing  emissions  and  the  transfer  of 
substances and reducing the level of environmental contamination by chemicals. 

For  the  action  “limitation  of  industrial  pollution  and  environmental  risks”,  the  budgets  are  estimated  as 
follows: 

EU contribution: €60 605 709 

National Public contribution: €10 695 125 

Total public contribution: €71 300 834 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Annex 3  

Table 6.1: Main direct benefits of preventing disasters 

Disaster type 

Major floods 

Number  of  deaths  and 
total  costs  in  EU-27  in 
2000-2007 (EM-DAT) 

Potential benefits 

Reduced  number  of  deaths  and  injuries.  Less  impact  on  infrastructure 
(bridges, dams, transport infrastructure), and buildings. Floods are the risk 
type with the largest economic costs in EU-27.  

524 deaths 

damage  cost:  48  billion 
USD 

Wind storms 

353 deaths 

damage  cost:  21  billion 
USD 

Reduced number of deaths and injuries. Less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings  and  reduced  costs  of  reconstruction  of  this  disaster  type  with 
significant  costs  in  EU-27.  Reduced  loss  of  habitats  and  biodiversity  in 
forests. 

Extreme temperature 
events (both extreme 
warm 
cold 
and 
periods)  

75583 deaths 

Significant  reduction  of  number  of  deaths.  Extreme  temperature  is  the 
predominant risk factor causing deaths in EU-27. 

damage  cost:  12  billion 
USD 

Droughts 

No deaths 

damage  cost:  2  billion 
USD 

Reduced  impact  on  irrigated  and  rain-fed  agricultural  productivity  and 
reduced water shortage. Less secondary economic effects due to reduced 
food production during drought. 

Forest and wild fires 

167 deaths 

damage  cost:  8  billion 
USD 

Reduced impact on forestry and agricultural sector productivity. Reduced 
number of deaths and injuries, less impact on infrastructure and buildings. 
Reduced loss of habitats and biodiversity. 

Earthquake 

31 deaths 

Reduced number of deaths and injuries, less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings and reduced costs of reconstruction. 

Tsunami 

damage  cost:  1.9  billion 
USD 

No disasters registered in 
EM-DAT 

Although this is a rare event, tsunamis may cause a high number of deaths 
and  major  damage.  Preventive  actions  may  therefore  have  significant 
benefits in terms of reduced number of deaths and injuries, less impact on 
infrastructure and buildings. 

Volcanic 

0 deaths 

Reduced number of deaths and injuries, less impact on infrastructure and 
buildings. 

damage  cost:  3  million 
USD 

Industrial accidents 

115 deaths 

Damage  cost:  10  billion 
USD 

Reduced  number  of  deaths  and  injuries  to  industrial  workers  and 
population in neighbourhoods of industrial installations and less impact on 
infrastructure and buildings close to industrial installations. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 4: Comparison of the impact of the options 

Table 7.1: Expected generic impacts of EU action and no-EU action  

Impact category 

No EU action 

EU action 

Direct impacts of disasters 

Depends  on  national  action  — 
potential divergence 

Decrease  in  the  impact  across 
the EU 

(see table 6.1) 

Development  of  national 
disaster prevention policies 

Unchanged  trend  —  potential 
divergence 

Strong  encouragement  to  the 
Member  States 
address 
disaster prevention 

to 

Strengthening  in  some  Member 
States  particularly  after  having 
experienced major disasters 

Cost of disaster management  Depends  on  national  action  — 

potential divergence 

Decreased  overall 
disaster  management 
increased eco-efficiency  

cost  of 
and 

Where  prevention 
sub-
optimal,  management  costs  are 
expected to remain high 

is 

Protection  of  citizens  and 
economic assets 

Depends  on  national  action  — 
potential divergence 

Improved  protection  of  citizens 
and  economic  assets  across  the 
EU 

Economic resilience  

Depends  on  national  action  — 
potential divergence 

Increase  of  economic  resilience 
of sectors concerned  

Nature and biodiversity 

Depends  on  national  action  — 
potential divergence 

Increased  protection  of  nature 
and biodiversity 

Administrative burden 

No impact 

Administrative 
national and EU level 

burden 

at 

Effectiveness  of  use  of  EU 
funds 

No impact 

Improved use of EU funds 

Depends on national policy  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 7.2: Comparison of options for building a consistent knowledge base on disasters 

Legislation 
mapping 

on 

risk 

Disaster observatory 

Financing projects 

Direct  impacts  of  disasters  (see 
table 6.1) 

++ 

+ 

+ 

Slow strong effects 

Rapid moderate effects 

Slow moderate effects 

Awareness of citizens and other 
actors  and  emergence  of  a 
disaster prevention culture 

++ 

Efficiency  of  the  use  of  EU 
funds 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

Strong indirect impact 

Strong indirect impact 

Limited indirect impact 

Administrative costs at national 
level 

-- 

- 

0 

Most  expensive  option 
as  it  requires  national 
legislation.  It 
implies 
administrative  burdens 
and compliance costs 

Costs  would  be  limited 
to 
data 
improving 
collection,  provision  of 
data  to  the  observatory. 
Administrative  burden 
costs can be expected.  

Any  such  costs  would 
be  compensated  by  EU 
funding 

Administrative  costs  at  EU 
level 

- 

-- 

0 

Proposing 
and  monitoring 
implementation 
adopted 
costs  

legislation 
the 
of 
legislation 

A  disaster  observatory 
would be created at EU 
level and would require 
than 
resources 
more 
monitoring 
the 
implementation  of  a 
directive 

As  projects  would  be 
existing 
included 
in 
instruments, 
no 
additional 
administrative  costs  are 
expected 

Research on disaster prevention  + 

++ 

+ 

Research 
to 
needed 
the option 

will 
be 
implement 

The  observatory  would 
provide  direct  input  to 
research priorities 

Projects 
would 
contribute  to  improving 
research 

Transboundary cooperation  

0 

+ 

++ 

The 
exercise  would 
mainly  be  of  a  national 
character 

The 
observatory 
foster 
information 
the Member States 

exchange 

disaster 
would 
of 
between 

Projects  would  always 
involve a transboundary 
cooperation dimension 

The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), (-) means a negative impact (e.g. increased cost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 7.3: Comparison of the options for linking the various actors and sectoral policies 

Multisectoral steering group 

Best practices and guidelines  

Direct  impacts  of  disasters  (see 
table 6.1) 

+ 

+ 

High  potential  but  relatively  complex 
set-up could limit the impacts 

High  potential  but 
guidance is by nature limited 

the 

impact  of 

Awareness of citizens and other 
actors  and  emergence  of  a 
disaster prevention culture 

+ 

+ 

Limited direct impact on awareness 

Limited direct impact on awareness 

Efficiency  of  the  use  of  EU 
funds 

Administrative costs at national 
level 

Administrative  costs  at  EU 
level 

+ 

- 

-- 

+ 

- 

- 

moderate  to  high  cost  expected  to 
ensure success 

Cost  to  set  up  the  guidelines  and  for 
specific  analysis  of  Member  State 
programmes 
to 
Parliament and Council 

reporting 

and 

Research on disaster prevention  + 

++ 

Links  made  in  group  with  research 
sector 

Guidelines  could  cover  all  instruments 
including research programmes 

Transboundary cooperation  

+ 

+ 

The  group  in  itself  would  create  links 
between  the  Member  State  leading  to 
opportunities for cooperation 

Transboundary  cooperation  would  be 
encouraged 

The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), (-) means a negative impact (e.g. increased cost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
Table 7.4: Comparison of the options for improving the use of EU funds for preventing disasters 

Specific funding 

Guidance on use of EU 
funds 

Enhancing 
prevention 
in 
EU 
instruments 

disaster 
provisions 
funding 

Direct  impact  of  disasters  (see 
table 6.1) 

+ 

+ 

++ 

Limited  to  scope  for 
resources 
significant 
under 
specific 
a 
instrument 

High  potential  but  the 
impact  of  guidance  is 
by nature limited 

Strong  signals  covering 
a  range  of  significant 
financial instruments 

Awareness of citizens and other 
actors  and  emergence  of  a 
disaster prevention culture 

Efficiency  of  the  use  of  EU 
funds 

Administrative costs at national 
level 

0 

+ 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

0 

++ 

0 

Costs  compensated  by 
EU financing 

Costs  compensated  by 
EU financing 

Costs  compensated  by 
EU financing 

Administrative  costs  at  EU 
level 

-- 

- 

- 

The  creation  of  a  new 
and 
instrument 
monitoring 
its 
implementation 
represent 
additional costs 

the  biggest 

to  set  up 
and 
analysis 

the 
Cost 
for 
guidelines 
of 
specific 
State 
Member 
programmes 
and 
reporting  to  Parliament 
and Council 

Initial  costs  to  set  up 
the  requirements.  In  a 
second stage little or no 
additional  costs  given 
the  full  integration  in 
the 
financial 
instruments 

Research on disaster prevention  + 

++ 

+ 

Research projects could 
supported  by  a 
be 
specific instrument 

Guidelines  could  cover 
instruments 
all 
including 
research 
programmes 

Research  programmes 
would not be concerned 
by the option 

Transboundary cooperation  

+ 

+ 

++ 

Transboundary 
cooperation  would  be 
one 
for 
criterion 
projects financed 

Transboundary 
cooperation  would  be 
encouraged 

Transboundary 
cooperation  would  be 
one 
for 
criterion 
projects financed 

The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), (-) means a negative impact (e.g. increased cost 
or reduced cooperation), (0) means no or negligible impact 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
Table 7.5: Comparison of the options for filling the gaps in existing initiatives 

Specific 
sectoral 
initiative  such  as  forest 
fires initiative 

Complement 
framework 

legal 

Review 
directive 

of 

Seveso 

Framework 
on disaster prevention 

legislation 

Direct 
disasters (see table 5.1) 

impact 

of 

Awareness  of  citizens 
and  other  actors  and 
emergence  of  a  disaster 
prevention culture 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

Ample evidence of scope 
and  potential  benefits  of 
EU action 

Limited 
addressed 

to 

disasters 

Scope  for  improvement 
limited  as  the  Directive 
already 
addresses 
prevention aspects 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Forest  fires  are  a  strong 
concern  given 
public 
their frequency 

Limited direct impact on 
awareness 

to 

Limited  to  public  living 
installations 
close 
covered  by  the  directive 
and to the staff employed 
in those installations 

Limited direct impact on 
awareness 

Efficiency  of  the  use  of 
EU funds 

++ 

0 

0 

+ 

States 

Member 
are 
expected  to  make  more 
use 
funding 
possibilities  if  a  specific 
instrument exists 

of 

Limited  impact  if  any  as 
legal  instrument  already 
exists 

Administrative  costs  at 
national level 

-- 

- (administrative burdens 
and compliance costs )  

- 

States, 
in 

A  new  directive  would 
imply new efforts by the 
in 
Member 
particular 
the 
Member 
vulnerable 
imply 
States. 
administrative 
burdens 
and compliance costs.  

It  will 

Only  incremental  costs 
expected 
as 
implementation 
structures  already  exist 
in the Member States 

-- 
(administrative 
burdens  and  compliance 
costs)  

Administrative  costs  at 
EU level 

Research  on  disaster 
prevention 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

- 

0 

- 

++ 

New  impetus  would  be 
the  specific 
given  for 
area 
fire 
forest 
of 
prevention 

Limited 
addressed 

to 

disasters 

Small impact if any 

Legislation  expected  to 
give strong signals 

Transboundary 
cooperation  

+ 

0 

0 

0 

levels 

Current 
of 
cooperation  would  be 
enhanced 

This 
option  would 
mainly  trigger  national 
action 

Scope  for  improvement 
limited  as  the  Directive 
already 
addresses 
prevention aspects 

This 
option  would 
mainly  trigger  national 
action 

The sign (+) means a positive impact (e.g. reduced cost or increased efficiency), (-) means a negative impact (e.g. increased cost or reduced cooperation), (0) 
means no or negligible impact. 

EN 

53 

   EN