Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters
Date: 2009-10-07
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, exchange of information, man-made disaster, natural disaster, regional cooperation








C_2010079EN.01001901.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/19





Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters’
(2010/C 79/04)


I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
General comments






1.


is perturbed to note the sharp rise over the past few years in the number, magnitude and intensity of disasters – either natural or directly or indirectly man-made – in the regions of the European Union. Change in the climate all over the world is making that of Europe more unstable and will lead to more extreme weather conditions, in turn making harm to people, infrastructure and the environment more likely.










2.


notes that disasters, whatever their cause, often inflict considerable harm on people, the economy, the environment and cultures. This damage and the cost of tackling disasters can far outstrip the cost of investment needed in preventive measures.










3.


notes that the focus of the established EU disaster-prevention instruments – Community Civil Protection procedures, the Civil Protection Financial Instrument and the EU Solidarity Fund –that are customarily deployed in the disaster management cycle of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery has predominantly been on the last three of these elements.










4.


for this reason, supports the political goal of developing a joint strategy for the – hitherto rather neglected – sphere of disaster prevention and of launching a broad debate on the matter. The strategy must help to achieve a balanced Community concept of civil protection for the EU.










5.


for this reason, agrees with the Commission that prevention is to be understood in two ways: firstly, as far as possible preventing disasters before they occur, and secondly, containing the consequences of those that cannot be avoided.










6.


also takes the view that disasters are sudden, unforeseen events that lead to a break-down of central public organisations, systems and operations and that conflict-related emergencies and terrorist attacks do not fall within this definition.










7.


stresses that, although most of these disasters are highly localised, they can transcend administrative boundaries, thus making collaboration between areas facing a common threat essential, especially in the area of prevention.










8.


points out that local and regional authorities, in particular, as the tier closest to the public, are the first to be directly affected and called upon to act. For this reason, they should be involved in all aspects of drawing up disaster-protection strategies and measures.










9.


also points out, in this connection, the crucial importance of taking direct action as swiftly as possible the moment a disaster threatens in order to contain its impact in any region of the EU, without regard to its geographical situation. For this reason, disaster-prevention measures must also be taken at the level most immediately affected and most capable of a rapid response.










10.


stresses, therefore, that both local and regional authorities – with their experience-based knowledge of their own local and regional circumstances – have the pivotal role to play in disaster prevention. It is not uncommon for the technical know-how to be available, but the funding for prevention strategies to be lacking.










11.


At the same time, recognises the fact that the drafting and implementation of emergency plans, as a preventative measure, has produced some excellent results in those cases in which it has been possible to implement them, although underfunding represents a significant difficulty in being able to carry out this preventative policy.










12.


for this reason, expressly welcomes the European Commission's request to the Committee of the Regions to provide it with further information with a view to consolidating a Community strategy for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters.




Development of knowledge-based prevention strategies at all levels






13.


shares the Commission's view that a better understanding of disasters is indispensable to the creation of effective local and regional disaster-prevention strategies.










14.


for this reason, welcomes the Commission's intention to develop a comprehensive inventory of existing sources of information relating to disasters. The evaluation of information already to hand should always take precedence over the gathering of additional data.










15.


notes in this connection that extensive data on disasters and their economic and social consequences are available both in the Member States and at European level. Additional measures should therefore only be invoked where knowledge is demonstrably patchy due to a lack of information or insufficient comparability.










16.


also endorses the proposal to compile an inventory of tried and tested practices. Local and regional authorities in the Member States are able to draw on a wealth of experience in disaster prevention which they should exchange with one another and make generally accessible (1).










17.


is profoundly sceptical, however, about whether sectoral approaches in particular acts of legislation, such as the Floods Directive or the Seveso Directive, can be meaningfully applied more generally. The nature of the danger from different kinds of disaster varies enormously depending on geographical, climate and geomorphologic circumstances. For this reason, the blanket application of a single prevention instrument is hardly likely to bring additional benefits against all risks.










18.


considers that drawing up a list of existing national guidelines on hazard/risk mapping and making this list available to the Member States could increase the comparability of dangers and risk across Europe. Such a list could be particularly helpful for Member States that do not yet have national measures for mapping hazards or risks.










19.


emphasises, however, that possible guidelines to be elaborated on that basis can only serve as recommendations. On the one hand, they must not lead to a costly re-drawing of maps that already exist in the Member States; on the other, the Member States must retain the ability to set their own priorities derived from specific local and regional characteristics.










20.


welcomes the setting of disaster-prevention priorities in the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Community-backed research is a sensible addition to the corresponding efforts of the Member States.




Linking the actors and policies throughout the disaster management cycle






21.


supports the Commission's proposal to extend the current ‘lessons learnt’ programme of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism to aspects of disaster prevention.










22.


is convinced that a Community concept for disaster prevention should also include a mutual assessment by Member States that are regularly affected by similar disasters. Such procedures (peer reviews) and the dissemination of their experience can help to embed disaster-prevention mechanisms in all Member States.










23.


also notes that aspects of disaster prevention should assume an important role in national courses and training on disaster protection. These training opportunities provided by the Member States for politicians and civil servants could be complemented, if need be, by training at Community level.










24.


stresses that, when it comes to raising public awareness in general, measures to inform people about disaster risks and action being planned in this area should take particular account of children, the elderly and those with reduced mobility. These awareness-raising measures should include individual preparatory and emergency actions and the Europe-wide ‘112’ emergency number, as well as foregrounding the opportunities for those afflicted to work together (e.g., making sure emergency services are not hampered and cooperating in evacuation).










25.


also takes the view that close cooperation and coordination should be promoted between stakeholders involved in defining and implementing measures designed to influence disaster prevention over the long term. Disaster prevention requires a multidimensional, forward-looking approach, bringing together all levels of state and private action, if it is to be fully effective.










26.


stresses at the same time that it lies with each Member State to organise collaboration and coordination between all participants in line with its competences. The importance of voluntary commitment and organisations in this sphere should be particularly recognised.










27.


for this reason, approves in principle the Commission's intention to put together a European network composed of representatives of the various national departments in order to improve coordination. However, an examination should be conducted into how far this goal can be served by further coordination or fusion of extant networks and improved collaboration, without creating additional structures.










28.


regrets that the Commission has not advanced any further measures aimed specifically at stepping up cross-border exchange of information, experience and good practices. There should be an intensive exchange of this kind particularly between local and regional authorities of neighbouring Member States that could fall victim to crossborder disasters such as floods and between Member States that are frequently plagued by the same kind of disaster, such as forest fires.










29.


points out that the INTERREG initiative has proved to be extremely effective in the exchange of tried and tested practices in the prevention of natural disasters in precisely such crossborder contexts. The establishment of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) can further improve the implementation of disaster-prevention measures in the areas of shared databases, exercises, risk assessment and early warning systems, as well as technology transfer and exchange of experts.




Making existing instruments perform better






30.


calls for an inventory to be made of existing Community instruments relevant to supporting disaster-prevention measures and for the cataloguing of prevention measures for which EU funding can already be used. Both of these measures are very well suited to giving new emphasis to the prevention element in disaster protection, including at subnational levels. Possibilities of financial support for crossborder plans, exercise and training should merit particular attention here.










31.


highlights the fact that these measures can markedly improve disaster prevention in the short term, even within the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Over the medium term, improved access to already available resources could ensure more efficient and effective use of funds even without raising the total disaster-protection budget.










32.


has misgivings, however, about the way some aspects of disaster prevention are treated in Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) and in the Seveso Directive 1996/82/EC. Existing procedures must not be overloaded if extra bureaucracy is to be avoided. In order to ensure effective disaster prevention, targeted and coordinated measures at local and regional level should be given precedence over a blanket extension of administrative and authorisation procedures.










33.


supports the Commission in its endeavours to integrate the common European design codes for buildings and civil works (‘Euro code 8’) into national planning regulations. Better building standards are the best way of palliating the consequences of the most disparate disaster scenarios and significantly cutting the number of potential causalities.










34.


in this connection, encourages the Commission to put disaster prevention centre stage in future cooperation initiatives with third countries.




Final comments






35.


notes that protecting the public from disasters is essentially a task for the Member States and their regional and local tiers and that many Member States already have extensive national strategies for disaster prevention in place. All efforts to improve disaster prevention must continue to build on the principles of solidarity, cooperation, coordination and support between these levels.










36.


expects the EU to respect the subsidiarity principle and make it a priority to give effective help to the Member States and regions repeatedly afflicted by natural disasters as they work towards developing and implementing their own prevention measures. The purpose of Community action must be to help them help themselves.










37.


urges the EU-Institutions to encourage and support, by means of the existing instruments preventative measures consisting for instance in the drafting and implementation of various emergency plans by local and regional authorities;










38.


for this reason, welcomes the Community approach set forth by the Commission of developing disaster prevention based on existing arrangements intended to complement national measures and concentrate on areas in which effective disaster prevention necessitates a common approach.










39.


in conclusion, reiterates its call (2) to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to heed the views of the local and regional authorities in planning any disaster-prevention initiatives and to put in place an effective procedure of prior consultation of individuals directly responsible for disaster management.





Brussels, 7 October 2009.


The President of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE




(1)  See CdR 116/2006 fin. Appendix, OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 13.

(2)  CdR 116/2006 fin; C 206, 29.8.06, p. 9.