Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the EU strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing ocuntries - Impact assessment {COM(2009) 84 final} {SEC(2009) 218} {SEC(2009) 220}
Date: 2009-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cooperation policy, developing countries, economic development, environmental risk prevention, humanitarian aid, impact study, natural disaster

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 217 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

EU STRATEGY FOR SUPPORTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN 
DEVELOPING OCUNTRIES 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2009) 84 final} 
{SEC(2009) 218} 
{SEC(2009) 220}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Evidence has long suggested that disaster risk reduction (DRR) has a high ratio of benefits to 
costs.  The  UN’s  International  Strategy  for  Disaster  Reduction  (ISDR)  defines  DRR  as: 
"Actions  taken  to  reduce  the  risk  of  disasters  and  the  adverse  impacts  of  natural  hazards, 
through  systematic  efforts  to  analyse  and  manage  the  causes  of  disasters,  including  through 
avoidance  of  hazards,  reduced  social  and  economic  vulnerability  to  hazards,  and  improved 
preparedness for adverse events".  

The  EU  is  the  world's  largest  donor  of  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA)  and 
Humanitarian Aid. It has a global presence and wide experience with individual DRR projects 
and programmes, but is lacking a strategic framework to guide its DRR support in developing 
countries in a coherent and coordinated manner.  

This  proportionate  impact  assessment  has  informed  the  Commission’s  adoption  of  a 
communication on an EU Strategy for supporting DRR in developing countries through both 
development cooperation and humanitarian aid, to help support the 2005 Hyogo Framework 
for Action1 and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  

The  strategy  is  half  of  a  package  covering  aspects  of  DDR  within2  and  beyond  the  EU, 
addressing also appropriate links between the two dimensions. It complements and supports 
existing EU climate change initiatives such as the Global Climate Change Alliance3 and the 
EU  Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change  and  Development,4  and  it  will  contribute  to  the 
development of climate change adaptation policies and measures to be decided under the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) post-2012 arrangement.  

The  Commission  is  proposing  the  strategy  under  Article  180  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European Community.5 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The  Commission  stated  its  intention  to  propose  an  EU  strategy  for  supporting  DRR  in 
developing countries in the Green Paper Adapting to climate change in Europe — options for 
EU  action6  and  in  the  communications  Building  a  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance,  and 
Reinforcing the Union’s disaster response capacity.7  

1 
2 

3 
4 
5 

6 
7 

Adopted in 2005 at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. 
Commission  communication  Towards  a  Community  strategy  for  the  prevention  of  natural  and  man-
made disasters (COM(2008)xx). 
COM (2007) 540 of 18.9.2007. 
Council document 15164/04. 
Article 180(1): ‘The Community and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development 
cooperation  and  shall  consult  each  other  on  their  aid  programmes,  including  in  international 
organisations  and  during  international  conferences.  They  may  undertake  joint  action.  Member  States 
shall  contribute  if  necessary  to  the  implementation  of  Community  aid  programmes.’  (2) ‘The 
Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to in paragraph 1.’ 
COM (2007) 354 of 29.6.2007. 
COM (2008) 130 of 5.3.2008. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Work  started  in  January  2008  when  a  Commission  core  working  group  consisting  of 
representatives  of  the  Directorates-General  for  Development,  External  Relations  and 
Humanitarian  Aid  was  set  up.  Wider  internal  consultations  took  place  via  an  inter-service 
group  consisting  of  representatives  of  the  Directorates-General  for  Development,  External 
Relations, Humanitarian Aid, Environment, EuropeAid, Research, the Joint Research Centre, 
the  Secretariat-General,  Health  and  Consumers,  and  Information  Society  and  Media.  This 
group worked mainly via email and met twice during the period February-July 2008. 

External  consultations  began  with  bilateral  meetings  with  key  stakeholders,  including  key 
civil  society  organisations,  UN  agencies,  partner  countries, 
international  financing 
institutions, EU Member States and the private sector during the period February to December 
2008. Moreover, a  public Internet consultation  took place  between  April and June  2008, on 
the basis of an issues paper developed with input from the groups mentioned above. Thirty-
five  substantive  contributions  were  received  from  individuals  and  groups  including  EU 
Member States, the UN system, academia, relief and humanitarian organisations, civil society, 
See 
international 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/about/consultation/index.cfm.  The  Commission  built  extensively 
upon the contributions received in drafting the communication and this impact assessment. 

institutions 

finance 

private 

sector. 

and 

the 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY CONTEXT 

3.1. 

Disasters are on the increase – developing countries are affected most 

Over  the  last  30  years,  disasters  have  increased  both  in  frequency  and  intensity.  The  total 
number reported rose from 73 in 1975 to about 440 in 2007. The number of climatic disasters 
has almost tripled, from 1280 between 1978 and 1987 to 3435 between 1998 and 2007.8  

Disasters hit developing countries hardest, as they are the most vulnerable and have the least 
capacity to cope. For example, the 6.6 earthquake which hit Iran in 2003 killed over 40 000 
people. By contrast, the 6.5 earthquake which hit central California four days earlier took two 
lives  and  injured  40  people.9  Disasters  also  divert  substantial  national  resources  from 
development to relief, recovery and reconstruction, depriving the poor of the resources needed 
to  escape  poverty.  In  Aceh,  Indonesia,  the  2004  tsunami  is  estimated  to  have  increased  the 
proportion of people living below the poverty line from 30% to 50%.10  

In addition, dependency on healthy animals and plants (crops) is high in developing countries, 
so that disasters caused by biological hazards can have negative impacts on food security and 
subsequently cause new disasters. For biological hazards it should also be kept in mind that 
incursions  of  diseases  or  pests  if  not  adequately  dealt  with  can  easily  become  endemic, 
thereby impacting substantially the "economic" status of the country or region and hence the 
mid- and longer-term economic perspectives.  

8 
9 
10 

Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. 
DFID (2006): Reducing the Risk of Disasters. 
Idem. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 1: The cost of inaction 

The  Indian  Ocean  tsunami  in  2004  killed  more  than  225 000  people  in  11  countries,  inundating 
coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters high. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in 
history. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand were hardest hit. There was no warning system to 
detect tsunamis in the Indian Ocean and local populations lacked the knowledge to detect the threat 
and take action to protect themselves.11 

In  1999,  Mozambique  requested  international  assistance  of  USD  2.7  million  to  prepare  for  and 
mitigate impending flood risk, but only half of this sum was eventually mobilised. In March 2000, in 
the  wake  of  terrible  flooding,  the  international  community  and  NGOs  gave  USD  100  million  in 
emergency assistance and relief, to be followed by an additional USD 450 million for rehabilitation.12 

On  the  role  of  climate  change,  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  has 
found that some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/or intensity.13 These 
changes  may  already  be  contributing  to  the  increasing  number  and  intensity  of  recent 
disasters, making the need for effective DRR even greater and more immediate. 

3.2. 

Investing in DRR pays off 

Disasters can be avoided. There are ways to reduce risks and to limit impacts, for example by 
addressing  the  root  causes  of  people’s  vulnerability  and  increasing  their  capacity  to  cope. 
DRR comprises preparedness, mitigation and prevention. DRR aims to enhance the levels of 
resilience  of  disaster  prone  countries  and  societies,  with  a  focus  on  long-term  building  of 
capacity and  institutions rather than just on post-event crisis management. It is underpinned 
by  knowledge  about  how  to  manage  risk,  build  capacity,  and  make  use  of  information  and 
communication technology and earth observation tools.  

Box 2: DRR success stories 

In  November  2008,  the  Nevado  del  Huila  volcano  in  southern  Colombia  erupted  causing  three 
avalanches  and  killing  about  10  people.  Thanks  to  the  early  warning  system  developed  by  the 
Colombian Red Cross in close collaboration with authorities, with technical assistance of French Red 
Cross within the framework of DIPECHO, 3,800 people were evacuated. A similar eruption in 1994 
had resulted in 1200 dead and some 500 missing persons. 

The category four Hurricane Michelle in 2001 was the strongest hurricane to hit Cuba in 50 years. 
Thanks to Cuba’s effective early warning system and its hurricane preparedness plan, 700 000 people 
were evacuated, of whom 270 000 were provided with temporary accommodation and basic needs for 
a longer time. Some 777 000 animals were moved to safe areas. The hurricane was a major economic 
setback, but only five deaths and 12 injuries were reported. 14 

In 1998 a tsunami struck the north-west coast of Papua New Guinea claiming 2 200 lives. Thanks to 
DRR  efforts  by  the  Asian  Disaster  Reduction  Center  following  this  disaster,  a  tsunami  in  2000 
destroyed thousands of houses but caused no deaths. 15  

Only  two  schools  were  left  standing  in  Grenada  after  the  passage  of  Hurricane  Ivan  (September 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

http://www.tsunami2004.net/ 
ISDR (2004): Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 
IPCC (2007): 4th Assessment Report. 
ISDR (2004): Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 
ADRC (2001). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2004). Both had been subject to retrofit and one of them was used to house displaced persons after the 
event.16 

There are also examples of good EU action in this field. A few years ago fears for a bird flu pandemic 
pushed  the  Commission  to  undertake  additional  preventative  action,  which  has  proven  successful  in 
controlling the disease within the Community. Furthermore, numerous initiatives at global level are 
being  undertaken  to  stop  the  disease  from  spreading  and  being  transmitted  to  humans,  often  with 
Commission financial support. The fact that efforts are joined globally and that many third countries 
have prepared national integrated human and animal health action plans to control possible disease 
occurrence shows that disaster preparedness pays off. 

Effective DRR can reduce the loss of life and property. Studies suggest benefits in terms of 
prevented or reduced disaster impacts of two to four dollars for each dollar invested in DRR.17 

3.3. 

International efforts on DRR 

In  recent  years,  the  focus  has  moved  from  mainly  responding  to  disasters  to  implementing 
comprehensive DRR approaches.  In 2005, 168 governments adopted the Hyogo Framework 
for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disaster and the 
Commission18  fully  supports  its  implementation.  The  challenge  now  is  to  translate  it  into 
effective  action  at  global,  regional,  national  and  local  level.  Many  developing  countries  are 
putting  considerable  effort  into  implementation,  but  are  constrained  by  lack  of  funding  and 
capacity.19 The 2nd Global Platform for DRR, to take place in June 2009, aims to sustain the 
Hyogo  momentum  and  will  take  stock  of  progress.  Growing  international  awareness  is 
evident from initiatives such as the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and 
Recovery (GFDRR).  

Negotiations  under  the  UNFCCC,  in  particular  the  Bali  Action  Plan  adopted  in  2007,  have 
also identified DRR as a means of adapting to climate change in order to reduce its impact, 
and as an adjunct to long-term efforts to mitigate climate change.20  

3.4. 

Grounds for EU action on DRR 

Both  the  2005  European  Consensus  on  Development  and  the  2007  European  Consensus  on 
Humanitarian  Aid  commit  the  EU  to  supporting  DRR  policy  and  action.  The  2008  Council 
conclusions on reinforcing the Union's disaster response capacity invited the Commission to 
present  a  proposal  for  an  EU  strategy  for  DRR  in  developing  countries.  The  European 
Parliament has also repeatedly argued for a more robust DRR policy and increased financial 
means. 

The  majority  of  EU  Member  States  and  the  Commission  support  DRR  efforts  in  all 
developing  country  regions  on  a  regular  basis  and  there  exist  good  examples  of  EU 
coordination,  for  example  in  Bangladesh  where  the  Comprehensive  Disaster  Management 
Programme 2010-2014 will be jointly supported by the EC and DFID. However, in spite of 
this,  current  EU  action  is  non-strategic  as  it  mainly  follows  an  ad hoc  project/programme 
approach and is often uncoordinated and inadequate. For example, in 10 years of intervention 

16 
17 
18 

19 

World Bank. Grenada, Hurricane Ivan: Preliminary Assessment of Damages, September 17, 2004. 
DFID (2006): Reducing the Risk of Disasters. 
Only governments could adopt the Hyogo Framework, which is why the Commission has not formally 
adopted it. 
ISDR: Global Review 2007. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
in disaster preparedness, especially through its DIPECHO  programmes in six disaster-prone 
areas in the world, the Commission is aware of very few formal cooperation examples with 
Member  States.  It  seems  that  the  effectiveness  of  EU  action  is  hampered  by  a  number  of 
factors: 

•  Lack  of  policy  and  strategic  frameworks  on  DRR.  While  the  Hyogo  Framework 
provides  harmonised  DRR  guidance,  it  is  not  readily  usable  for  development 
cooperation  purposes.  For  example,  the  regional  context  is  barely  mentioned  in 
spite  of  the  comparative  advantage  and  economies  of  scale  to  be  gained  from 
regional action. Only the UK and Sweden (SIDA) has so far developed a specific 
DRR policy/startegy but other Member States are planning to do so. Indeed, some 
10  Member  States  and  the  Commission  are  currently  stepping  up  individual 
support  for  DRR.  This  will  inevitably  lead  to  more  fragmentation  and/or 
duplication of effort if there is no EU strategy to guide such efforts. 

•  Lack of a common voice. The EU currently lacks a common voice on DRR even 
though  its  thinking  on  DRR  is  clearly  converging.  DRR  needs  to  be  part  of  the 
political  dialogue  between  the  EU  and  developing  countries  and  will  be  most 
effective if the EU’s message is consistent and coordinated. For example, the lack 
of a distinct and coordinated EU presence at the 1st Global Platform on Disaster 
Reduction  in  2007  was  evident.  The  UNFCCC  is  another  forum  in  which  a 
coordinated EU position on DRR and climate change would be helpful.  

•  Limited progress with the integration of DRR. Given the risk that disasters pose to 
development,  DRR  needs 
into  EU  development 
cooperation. Such efforts are currently ongoing in several Member States and the 
Commission  but  progress  so  far  has  been  uneven  and  limited  and  needs  to  be 
improved. 21 

to  be  better 

integrated 

•  Limited linking of DRR and climate change. DRR is an essential part of successful 
adaptation  to  climate  change  and  effective  DRR  increasingly  needs  to  take 
account  of  the  changes  in  risk  associated  with  climate  change.  However,  in 
practice,  the  benefits  and  synergies  of  linking  DRR  and  adaptation  are  not 
systematically identified and capitalised upon.  

All of the above suggests that an EU strategy supporting DRR in developing countries would 
give  the  EU  the  strategic  direction  it  is  currently  lacking,  while  at  the  same  time  pulling 
together  all  ongoing  EU  DRR  efforts,  allowing  benefits  and  synergies  to  be  exploited  in  a 
more  coherent  and  coordinated  manner,  including  those  related  to  policy  coherence,  non-
duplication of effort, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and exchange of best practice.  

4. 

OBJECTIVES  

In light of the challenges outlined in the previous section, the overall objective should be to 
contribute to sustainable development and poverty eradication by reducing the burden 
of  disasters  on  the  poor  and  the  most  vulnerable  countries  and  population  groups,  by 
means of improved DRR. 

21 

Tearfund (2007): Institutional donor progress with mainstreaming DRR. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Strategic objectives would then be to: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

support  developing  countries 
development policies and planning effectively; 

in 

integrating  DRR  considerations 

into 

their 

support developing countries and societies in reducing disaster risk more effectively, 
through targeted action on disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness;  

integrate DRR considerations more effectively into EU development and humanitarian 
aid  policies  and  programming,  and  crisis  response  where  it  covers  disaster  response 
and recovery. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

With a view to meeting the above objectives, the Commission examined three policy options.  

5.1. 

Policy options 

Option  1:  No  new  EU  policy  or  strategy  on  DRR  (baseline  scenario).  The  European 
Commission  and  EU  Member  States  would  continue  with  ‘business  as  usual’,  i.e.  mostly  a 
programme or project approach to DRR, addressing key needs in some key countries/regions 
but  without  any  strategic  guidance  or  means  for  strengthening  EU  coordination, 
complementary and coherence on DRR beyond existing one-off actions and approaches. 

Option 2: An EC strategy for supporting DRR in developing countries which would guide 
Commission  instruments  only.  This  second  option  is  a  ‘limited  approach’  in  which  the 
Commission would adopt its own unilateral strategy towards DRR.  

This  would  allow  strategic  programming  of  increased  Commission  resources  for  DRR,  in 
particular under the 10th European Development Fund, and guidance on mainstreaming DRR 
considerations in the Community’s overall development and humanitarian aid.  

Option  3:  A  comprehensive  EU  strategy  for  supporting  DRR  in  developing  countries, 
encompassing both development cooperation and humanitarian aid, in support of the Hyogo 
Framework  for  Action.  This  strategy  would  be  supported  by  both  EC  and  Member  States’ 
instruments. 

This third option would reflect the European Consensus  on Development and Humanitarian 
Aid and be based on the EU’s comparative advantage as collectively the largest donor in the 
world, with global coverage. It would use the emerging momentum on DRR and strengthen 
EU coordination, complementary and coherence for increased efficiency and concrete results 
in developing countries. 

5.2. 

Option 3 — an EU strategy supporting DRR in developing countries 

The proposed strategy would build on strategic work done by the EC22 and Member States, 
and  DRR  lessons  learnt  from  all  developing  country  regions.  While  the  priority  areas  for 

22 

Commission communications on Reinforcing the Union's disaster response capacity (COM(2008)130); 
Building  a  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance  between  the  European  Union  and  poor  developing 
countries  most  vulnerable  to  climate  change  (COM(2007)540);  Reinforcing  EU  disaster  and  crisis 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
intervention  below  would  be  fully  in  line  with  the  priorities  of  the  Hyogo  Framework,  the 
strategy’s objectives and the implementation priorities  would specifically reflect the context 
of existing partnership and cooperation between the EU and developing countries, including 
at the regional level. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

ensure  that  DRR  is  a  national  and  local  priority  with  strong  institutional  basis  for 
implementation;  

identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks — and enhance early warning;  

use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at 
all levels;  

reduce the underlying risk factors;  

strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. 

5.2.1.  Geographic coverage, scope and approach 

All  developing  countries23  and  EU  Oversees  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs)  would  be 
covered by the strategy, but particular attention would be given to disaster-prone regions, least 
developed  and  highly  vulnerable  countries  and  localities,  and  the  most  vulnerable  groups.24 
Collaboration on DRR with the outermost regions would also be furthered. 

The  disasters  targeted  would  be  those  caused  by  natural25  and  technological  hazards. 
However,  different  hazards  can  interact,  resulting  in  a  domino  effect  —  e.g.,  environmental 
degradation  increasing  the  impact  of  flooding,  bringing  on  epidemics.  A  multi-hazard 
approach should therefore be adopted as appropriate, since it can lead to greater resilience to 
other  types  of  disaster  as  well.  While  acknowledging  that  disasters  can  exacerbate  existing 
tensions  and  instability,  the  strategy  would  not  address  man-made  disasters  such  as  conflict 
and  war.26  Consideration  would  be  given  to  both  slow-  and  rapid-onset  disasters;  to  large-
scale  as  well  as  localised  but  frequently  occurring  disasters  such  as  landslides,  flash  floods, 
fires,  storms,  outbreaks  of  human  and  animal  diseases  and  plant  pests,  bearing  in  mind  that 
they may require different approaches. 

The strategy would combine support for the integration of DRR in EU external action and in 
developing  countries'  strategies,  and  targeted  DRR  action  which  can  usefully  complement 
integration efforts with great immediate impact. Examples include key DRR investment with 
good  replication  potential,  such  as  specific  DRR  programmes  or  regional  early  warning 
systems.  The  regional  dimension  is  crucial  since  disasters  do  not  stop  at  borders.  The  EU 
would  use  its  presence  and  experience  at  regional  level  to  support  action  that  is  more 
effectively  taken  at  regional  level  in  line  with  the  principles  of  comparative  advantage  and 
subsidiarity. 

response in third countries (COM(2005)153), the joint High Representative and Commission paper on 
Climate  and  international  security  (S113/08)  and  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  Disaster 
Preparedness and Prevention (2003).  
OECD/DAC list of ODA recipients. 
To  be  further  identified  through  risk  analysis  at  the  relevant  levels  and  resulting  vulnerabilities  and 
specific needs. 
Biological, geophysical or hydro-meteorological. 
In such situations, linking DRR to crisis prevention and response efforts will be important. 

23 
24 

25 
26 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
5.2.2. 

Implementation priorities 

The  EU  should  support  the  full  implementation  of  the  strategy  making  use  of  its  wide 
experience with DRR. However, it is suggested that a quick start should be made in the below 
areas where the EU has a comparative advantage:  

•  Political  dialogue  on  DRR.  The  EU  should  launch  a  political  dialogue  on  DRR 
with all developing regions and countries in existing fora, including in support of 
advancing  climate  change  negotiations  on  a  UNFCCC  post-2012  arrangement. 
The EU should further aim for a coordinated presence at the 2nd Global Platform 
for DRR in June 2009.  

•  Regional  Action  Plans  on  DRR.  The  EU  should  support  the  development  and 
implementation  of  DRR  action  plans  in  disaster-prone  regions.  These  could  be 
implemented  partly  by  up-scaling  existing  EU  DRR  projects  and  programmes, 
building  on  developing  countries’  strategies  and  priorities.  They  should  also 
complement and support adaptation initiatives such as the GCCA. It is suggested 
to  start  with  an  Action  Plan  for  the  Caribbean  to  support  inter  alia  the 
implementation  of  the  Comprehensive  Disaster  Management  Strategy27.  Others 
should follow, e.g. for Latin America, South-East Asia, Africa and the Pacific.  

•  Integration  of  DRR  into  EU  and  developing  country  policies  and  planning  and 
support for key national DRR investment. The EU should integrate DRR into EU 
development  cooperation,  humanitarian  response  and  recovery  efforts,  making 
full use of  best  integration practice and tools developed by the Commission and 
individual  Member  States,  including  those  for  the  environment  and  climate 
change and civil protection authorities. The Commission should use the next mid-
term review of country and regional strategy papers as an entry point for having 
DRR  considerations  fully  integrated  in  its  development  assistance,  where 
appropriate, in the next programming cycle starting in 2012.  

•  The  EU  should  also  support  the  integration  of  DRR  into  developing  countries’ 
national  policies  and  planning,  including  relevant  sector  policies  and  strategies, 
particularly  Poverty  Reduction  Strategy  Papers  (PRSPs),  disaster-sensitive 
sectors,  and  relevant  cross-cutting  issues.  The  EU  should  coordinate  its  support 
for  key  DRR  investment  already  identified  and  planned  for  in  such  national 
frameworks. 

To  take  forward  the  political  dialogue  on  DRR,  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  strategy 
and foster coordination and alignment of EU support, the Commission should set up an EU 
DRR Steering Group (SG) including the Commission and EU Member States.  

5.2.3.  Funding instruments 

The  EU  should  implement  the  strategy  using  the  full  range  of  funding  instruments  at  its 
disposal  and  in  the  context  of  the  EU  target  of  raising  Official  Development  Assistance 

27 

The  Eastern  Caribbean  countries  are  among  the  10  most  disaster-prone  countries  in  the  world.  An 
Action Plan for the Caribbean should also be closely linked to the implementation of the Cariforum–EU 
Declaration on Climate Change and Energy (05/08).  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(ODA) to 0.56% of GNP by 201028. Indeed, several Member States and the Commission29 are 
currently  scaling  up  funding  for  DRR  within  existing  financial  frameworks.  Although  the 
communication  does  not  have  any  additional  financial  implications  and  the  actions  will  be 
financed within the existing financial framework 2007-20013, it provides the framework for 
ensuring  that  existing  instruments  are  complementary  and  are  used  to  best  effect,  including 
better inter-linking of DRR funding from development and humanitarian instruments.  

As to the EC, its main funding sources include the European Development Fund (EDF) and 
instruments of the EC general budget30. Individual DRR allocations are further articulated in 
Country  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers  for  all  developing  regions,  intra-ACP  programmes, 
Drought  Preparedness  and  DIPECHO  programmes  in  the  humanitarian  aid  context,  and  in 
thematic programmes on food security and environment/natural resources. For example, €180 
million has been proposed to be allocated to DRR under 10th EDF intra-ACP resources.31 The 
Commission  should  explore  a  better  integrated  articulation  between  the  above.  The  7th 
Research  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  and  the  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  also 
support a substantial amount of hazard- and disaster-related research and tools.  

The  EU  should  also  explore  ways  of  mobilising  innovative  funding,  additional  to  existing 
ODA,  for  the  benefit  of  both  DRR  and  climate  change  adaptation.  The  Global  Climate 
Financing  Mechanism,  currently  being  developed  by  the  Commission,  could  be  one  such 
instrument. 

6. 

IMPACT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  

Given  its  policy  nature,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  quantify  the  impacts  the  three  above-
mentioned options will have on developing countries and their capacity to cope with disasters. 
In particular, factors such as the non-binding nature of policy; the multitude of actors working 
on disaster risk reduction, including non-EU donors; a lack of ownership of agreed policy and 
relevant DRR indicators contribute to the difficulty of quantifying and clearly attributing any 
impact to any discrete policy interventions, whether at EC or EU level.  

However,  it  is  possible  to  assess  and  differentiate,  at  a  more  generic  level,  the  possible 
impacts the three policy options may have and to identify barriers and enabling environments. 

6.1. 

Political impact 

Strong political commitment both on the part of partner countries, at national and local level, 
and donors  and  well rooted engagement of non-state actors  and vulnerable groups is key to 
achieving  visibility  for  DRR  and  advancing  DRR  issues  at  all  levels.  Developing  countries 
should be supported to take the lead on DRR and implement the Hyogo Framework.  

A  ‘no  policy  change’  scenario  would  do  little  to  increase  the  policy  profile  of  DRR  either 
within the EC/EU or in developing countries. This is due to the current non-strategic focus of 
both Commission and EU Member States assistance, which is mainly support for individual 

28 
29 

30 

31 

EN 

Target reconfirmed in Doha 2008. 
Commitments  in  2006 :  €39.95  million,  and  in  2007:  €65.06  million,  from  Dipecho,  Greater  Horn  of 
Africa and EDF resources. 
for: 
Instruments 
Neighbourhood and Partnership. 
Multi-annual intra-ACP programme to be adopted in December 2008. 

i) development  cooperation, 

ii) humanitarian  aid, 

iii) stability, 

iv) European 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programmes and projects. The only Member State that has developed a DRR strategy so far is 
the UK. Political impact would thus remain low for this option. 

The option of an EC strategy would provide the framework for strengthening DRR dialogue 
between the Commission and partner countries, in particular when developing, evaluating and 
revising  Country  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers.  This  could  indeed  strengthen  the  policy 
profile of DRR and make it a more prioritised issue for developing countries. It would still be 
an incomplete approach, however, since it would be done in isolation by the EC and would 
therefore still have only limited political impact. 

An EU Strategy would fully support an EU advocacy role, both internally and externally, to 
increase  the  visibility  of,  and  demonstrate  the  need  for  and  benefits  of  DRR.  A  joint  EU 
message, where everybody would be speaking the same language, would provide the critical 
mass  needed  to  place  DRR  firmly  on  the  agenda  with  developing  countries  and  help  to 
remediate  a  lack  of  political  commitment.  The  impact  could  be  medium  to  high  for  this 
option. 

6.2. 

Economic impact 

Disaster can have enormous economic impacts on developing countries, in particular the least 
developed  countries,  depriving  them  of  resources  needed  to  escape  poverty.  For  donors, 
investing in DRR is likely to lead to lesser costs with regard to humanitarian aid, recovery and 
reconstruction in the aftermaths of disasters since economic losses can be mitigated through 
DRR policies and action. Furthermore, making sure that development investment is disaster 
resilient from the very start ensures that such investment is sustainable and cost-effective. In 
short, evidence shows that investment in DRR pays off. 

A ‘no policy change’ scenario would basically continue to support one-off DRR efforts that 
would mitigate the risk of economic losses, for example through investing in disaster-resilient 
infrastructure,  which  can  have  good  local  benefits  in  terms  of  reduced  economic  losses  and 
impact. However, the macro-economic impacts of disasters can be such that whole countries 
and regions may suffer for considerable time. Such scale impacts cannot be addressed solely 
on a programme/project basis, which indicates the limits of this option and the need for more 
strategic solutions. 

An  EC  strategy  could  be  much  more  instrumental  in  reducing  adverse  economic  impacts  in 
developing countries, by combining strategic targeted interventions with integration of DRR 
into  overall  EC  development  policies  and  planning  as  a  main  route  to  strengthening  the 
resilience  and  sustainability  of  development  efforts.  However,  to  be  able  to  support 
developing  countries  addressing  macro-economic  impacts  of  large  scale  disasters,  the 
Commission cannot and should not be working on its own.  

An  EU  strategy  would  allow  the  EU  to  have  a  more  coordinated  approach  in  a  number  of 
areas,  including  integration,  making  use  of  both  Commission  and  EU  Member  States 
experiences  and  tools  to  help  prevent  and  mitigate  economic  losses  in  developing  countries 
and loss of donor  investment. Well-coordinated action is more effective,  more  strategic  and 
more  anticipatory.  This  will  be  particularly  important  in  connection  with  scaling  up  aid  for 
DRR. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Social impact 

Disasters triggered by natural hazards cost lives, ruin livelihoods and can trigger subsequent 
health disasters such as outbreaks of cholera and diarrhoea. Vulnerability to disasters is also 
increased through poverty, lack of social and financial safety-nets, poor health and disability. 
On the other hand, investing in public awareness raising campaigns and training programmes 
helps  inform  people  about  the  risk  they  may  face  and  about  possible  options  and  measures 
they  can  take  to  reduce  vulnerability  and  better  prepare  themselves  —  and  if  they  are 
motivated to act, disasters can be reduced substantially.  

Once again, a ‘no policy change’ scenario can have local benefits in terms of raised awareness 
through  specific  programmes  and  projects.  But  in  order  to  address  and  mitigate  the  whole 
range  of  negative  social  impacts  due  to  disasters,  a  more  strategic  and  holistic  approach  is 
called for. 

An EC strategy could be more coordinated and help integrate DRR in relevant sector policies, 
thereby limiting both social and economic impacts, while contributing to a culture of safety 
and resilience at all levels. But again, we would have the EC acting on its own with limited 
results and a risk of both duplication of efforts and significant gaps. 

An EU strategy would make use of the EU’s collective experience and instruments, while at 
the  same  time  ensure  policy  coherence  with  closely  related  policy  areas  such  as  poverty 
reduction,  gender,  health  and  education  in  order  to  minimise  social  impacts  of  disasters  on 
developing  countries.  Building  for  example  on  ongoing  preparedness  programmes,  the  EU 
strategy  could  be  a  suitable  framework  for  scaling  up  EU  initiatives  and  programmes  in  a 
coordinated and effective way. 

6.4. 

Environmental impact 

Environmental  impacts  following  disasters  can  be  significant  and  even  irreversible.  Also, 
vulnerability to natural hazards is increased in many ways, for example through poor natural 
resources management, environmental degradation and increasing climate change.  

A ‘no policy change’ scenario of DRR programmes and projects would again be mostly local, 
reactive  and  non-strategic.  This  may  not  be  the  best  way  to  address  linkages  to  increasing 
climate change, which is global and needs a strategic, anticipatory approach. 

An  EC  strategy  would  be  more  suited  to  addressing  these  kinds  of  challenges  and  enable 
important  linkages  to  Commission-led  EU  initiatives  such  as  the  Global  Climate  Change 
Alliance to made and acted upon. 

An EU Strategy would also commit both the Commission and Member States to work more 
closely  and  collaboratively  with  important  DRR/environment  interfaces  such  as  climate 
change and should contribute to the development of policies for  adapting to climate  change 
and measures to be decided under the UNFCCC post-2012 arrangement.  

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

In  line  with  the  guidelines  for  impact  assessments,  the  criteria  used  to  evaluate  the  three 
options outlined in section 6 were effectiveness (the extent to which options can be expected 
to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  proposal), efficiency  (the  extent  to  which  objectives  can  be 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
achieved  for  a  given  level  of  resources/at  least  cost),  and  consistency  (the  extent  to  which 
options are likely to limit trade-offs across the economic, social, and environmental domain). 

While  each  of  the  policy  options  could  have  benefits  with  regard  to  DRR  in  developing 
countries, the Commission prefers the third option, an EU strategy, since it is the only option 
that would contribute substantially to the objectives identified in section 4.  

The desirability of action at EU level is explained by the following factors: 

•  The  European  Consensus  on  Development  and  the  European  Consensus  on 
Humanitarian  Aid  both  commit  the  EU  to  progress  on  EU  policy  and  action  on 
DRR. An EU strategy will foster joint understanding of priorities and areas where 
EU instruments can obtain the greatest impact. 

•  The  EU  is  the  largest  aid  donor,  but  still needs  to  make  progress  with  regard  to 
effectiveness, efficiency and lower transaction costs. Closer EU collaboration on a 
common DRR framework will contribute to this and constitutes good policy and 
practice;  collective  EU  action  will  be  more  efficient  than  actions  taken  by 
individual Member States and actions will better complement each other. 

•  Making full strategic use of the various strengths of Commission and the Member 
States  with  regard  to  DRR  is  fully  in  line  with  the  Paris  Declaration  on  Aid 
effectiveness and the EU Code of Conduct and Division of Labour. 

•  EU  partner  countries  will  benefit  from  more  donor  coordination  (dealing  with 
fewer  donors,  more  consistent  messages)  and  possibly  more  significant  support 
for  DRR,  given  current  up-scaling  of  funding  and  less  duplication  and/or 
fragmentation of aid. 

8. 

ORGANISATION OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The  proposed  EU  DRR  Steering  Group  should  drive  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  process 
for  the  proposed  strategy  and  establish  appropriate  timelines.  Care  should  be  taken  not  to 
duplicate  existing  institutional  structures  dealing  with  closely  connected  and  overlapping 
issues  such  as  climate  change  adaptation.  Two  types  of  complementary  monitoring  and 
evaluation mechanisms could be proposed.  

•  A.  Multiannual  progress  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  based  on 
contributions  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  detailing  support  for 
DRR  in  developing  countries  and  progress  with  integrating  DRR  in  bilateral 
development  programming.  This  would  include  the  development  of  relevant 
progress and performance indicators. 

•  B.  Occasional  multi-stakeholder  conferences  to  publicise  progress  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Strategy,  pool  experiences  and  lessons  learnt  and  obtain 
direct feedback on implementation. 

EN 

13 

   EN