Member States' Approaches towards Prevention Policy - a...

European Commission DG Environment

Member States' Approaches towards Prevention Policy - a Critical Analysis Final Report

March 2008

European Commission DG Environment

Member States' Approaches towards Prevention Policy - a Critical Analysis Final Report

March 2008

COWI A/S Parallelvej 2 DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby Denmark Tel +45 45 97 22 11 Fax +45 45 97 22 12 www.cowi.com

Report no.

Issue no.

Date of issue

Prepared VKSW, MSJ, NIMD, BGHA

Checked MSJ

Approved MSJ

Member States' Approaches towards Prevention Policy - a Critical Analysis

P:\64152-A9\3_Pdoc\DOC\Final Report\Draft Final Report_sent_to_DG_ENV_29_jan_2008.doc

1

.

Table of Contents

1 Summary and conclusions 3 1.1 Overall observations 3 1.2 Conclusions 7 1.3 Analysing the steps - findings and recommendations

on elements to bring into the framing of an EU intervention 13

2 Introduction 25

3 Overall findings 28 3.1 Prevention concepts 29 3.2 Conceptualisation and definitions of prevention

policies 30 3.3 Sectoral, thematic or comprehensive policies 30 3.4 Prevention structures and the links between

response/preparedness and mitigation/restoration 33 3.5 Intersection across Member States of prevention

policies or actions 36 3.6 Existing and planned prevention and risk

assessment/management concepts at Member State level 37

3.7 The conditions necessary for the implementation of prevention policies at the different administrative levels 38

4 Main findings from the case studies 40 4.1 Disaster profile of the countries 40 4.2 Status of capacity 41 4.3 Comprehensive disaster prevention approaches 45 4.4 Drivers for prevention 47 4.5 Special features 52 4.6 Challenges, weaknesses and threats 54 4.7 EU added value action 57



2

.

5 Derived system for disaster prevention 61 5.1 Actors and stakeholders 62 5.2 Scenarios 65 5.3 Risk mapping 66 5.4 Strategy 67 5.5 Action plan 68 5.6 Implementation 69 5.7 Systematic follow-up 69 5.8 Distribution of responsibilities 70 5.9 Resources and capacity allocation 71 5.10 Research 71 5.11 Additional recommendations of a possible EU

intervention 72

Annex 1 - Methodology 73

Annex 2 - List of Abbreviations 76

Annex 3 List of consulted sources 77

Annex 4 List of missions and interviews 80



3

.

1 Summary and conclusions This report constitutes the draft final report on the study to investigate Member States' approaches to disaster prevention. The study was conducted by COWI AS in collaboration with DHI. The study contract was signed in September 2007, and this report was finalised in late January 2008. The study was carried out in parallel to and close coordination with another study considering the Community Setting concerning prevention of natural and manmade disasters.

The study has aimed to provide insights and an enhanced understanding of Member States' approaches to disaster prevention. Building upon this, the study provides conclusions and recommendations as regards the scope of a possible EU comprehensive intervention in the field of disaster prevention.

The study builds on the outcome of a desk study exercise and the conduct of four case studies. The desk study exercise consisted in the screening of a wealth of literature sources and a more in-depth analysis of some of them. The case studies looked more into the issue from the angle of four selected case coun-tries, viz. France, Portugal, Romania and Sweden.

The study results presented here remain the sole responsibility of the consult-ant. We highly appreciate the willingness with which experts in the four se-lected case countries have shared their knowledge and viewpoints with us, and we want to underline that they have done so as individuals and not necessarily as representatives of their respective institutions or countries.

We would thus like to emphasise the nature of this study as a preliminary and explorative study. Hence, it draws its conclusions and recommendations from a fairly limited set of sources consisting of the list of literature contained in the annex and 4-6 interviews with different relevant institutions in each of the four selected Member States.

1.1 Overall observations The study has pointed to the following important observations and conclusions:

Policy framing Concerning policy framing, we have observed that the main drivers of such a process are external policy requirements, such as the Seveso Directive and the Flood Directive. Also, we observed that - not least driven by the obligations and efforts in regard to climate change - adaptation has clearly spurred a stronger recognition in Member States of the need for thematic, or ideally com-



4

.

prehensive, approaches to disaster prevention; to structures, processes and poli-cies. Thus, the observation is valid for all four case studies, and it indicates a likely recent trend towards more integration and coordination compared to the observations found in earlier studies. Thus, one may argue that the climate change agenda and challenges have paved the way for a more profound under-standing of the need to orientate prevention policies in a more horizontal direc-tion and to ensure the functioning vertical links.

Member States generally appear to have developed quite effective and well-coordinated mechanisms for crisis management (response and recovery), also in regard to specific disaster types, anchored with and coordinated by, first and foremost the Ministry of the Interior. Among other things, this reflects that cri-sis management and civil protection are areas with a long history and a strong national momentum. Disaster prevention as a discipline in its own right is a newer area. This is reflected in the fact also that the concept of prevention is not defined in a unique manner; neither across countries nor within a specific coun-try. Those observations apply to all the case countries and have been confirmed also by the literature consulted. Early warning systems and risk mapping are integral aspects of civil protection and widely acknowledged as important tools in prevention.

There are indications from the case studies that prevention tend to be most in focus immediately after an experienced disaster, and with a particular focus on that particular type of disaster. Some countries raised concerns that it can be/is difficult to maintain the long-termed political momentum and the consequent budgetary allocations as time elapses from the occurrence that caused the atten-tion. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the case studies seem to indicate that the new Member States, and Member States with high risk exposure rela-tive to their economic capabilities, appear to be quite positive towards stronger joint efforts and obligations, i.e. at a supra-national level. These observations in particular relate to the case studies on Romania and Portugal.

Prevention culture As mentioned above, prevention is gaining political momentum not least due to the risks involved in climate change. In this regard it is worth mentioning also that we are inclined to conclude from the study a tendency towards a gradual loss of a prevention culture at the more individual level. Somehow, prevention has become more viewed as a societal responsibility at the expense of individ-ual precautions. This actually points to an important dilemma between provid-ing, on the one hand, a strong sense of security for society and, on the other hand inciting citizens, industries and other actors to take appropriate preventive measures proactively. This suggests the need for solid stakeholder involvement and broad awareness of the problem. This understanding was especially visible in Sweden and Portugal. In addition, proper insurance systems with a broad coverage play a crucial role in providing an appropriate level in society of sta-bility and security. In France, the system is legally founded; solidarity based; joining the insurance is compulsory; and the system is managed by the insur-ance sector and guaranteed by the State. This implies that all property owners are covered no matter their financial situation. The advantage of this system is the overall high level of security; and its automatic inclusion also of the less well-off parts of the population. The latter implies that there is no income-

Civil protec-tion/crisis manage-ment

Stable and long-termed momentum



5

.

related bias. The drawback is its potential lack of incentives for individual pro-active behaviour in regard to prevention, and the possible lack of incentives also for the insurance sector to incite prevention behaviours.

Spatial planning Recently, the insurance system in France was combined with spatial planning and risk mapping in the sense of introducing red, green and yellow zones, and where insurance entitlements depend on compliance with the regulations gov-erning these risk zones.

This points to another important observation that disaster prevention actions, and their efficiency, are closely linked to spatial planning and to risk mapping. This is generally appreciated in the countries, and it is taken on board at the policy- and legislative level. The main challenge in this regard seems to relate to enforcement and control. The importance of this challenge is overall appreci-ated, while its significance may differ. The issue was clearly raised in Romania and also during some interviews in France. In Portugal, it was mentioned that systematic follow-up and implementation of legislation and measures is not always happening.

Incentives Apart from such command-and-control measures and the option of linking insurance damages to prevention levels and risk exposures, incentives for better prevention behaviour and attention may also be provided through awareness building and educational efforts. Such efforts have been made in all the Mem-ber States analysed:

• by involving the local community in the framing of plans and actions (Swe-den, Portugal and France);

• in Romania, through the inclusion of prevention issues in information to the public, e.g. by letting awareness of and education in handling earthquakes form part of the curriculum at primary and secondary schools as well as re-cruiting.

• in Portugal, by launching a forest fire prevention awareness campaign, in-cluding educational material for schools.

The four case study countries have all been affected by natural and manmade disasters and are likely to meet several future challenges. Some of the dominant potential disasters for Europe are storms, extreme temperatures and coastal zone erosion. In addition to this there is a geographic pattern where flooding and landslides are major concerns to the north and middle of Europe, drought, and where forest fires are more predominant to the south. The table below pro-vides an overview of the dominant disaster types in the four case countries:

Dominant disaster types in case coun-tries



6

.

Country Dominant disaster risk types

Sweden Storms

Flooding

Land slides

Extreme temperatures

Portugal Drought

Forest fires

Flooding

Coastal zone erosion

Earthquakes

France Flooding


Forest Fires

Coastal erosion

Romania Flooding

Earthquakes

Land slides

Draught

Source: Case Study Reports on Sweden, Portugal, France and Romania.

While a country like France has a highly centralised structure, others such as Portugal and Sweden are much more decentralised with responsibilities being de-concentrated to regional and local levels. It appears that in Sweden and Por-tugal the decentralised organisation is seen as a strategic approach to disaster prevention. The understanding here is that knowledge of local conditions and the cross-sectoral approach at the local level is a strength. This must be sup-plemented by national initiatives. Thus, in the two countries, the built-in com-prehensive and horizontal approach at the local level to a number of issues in-cluding civil protection and disaster prevention in combination with the local knowledge and understanding is built upon as part of the developing approach to disaster prevention. Furthermore, it seems that the strategic choices of the two countries point towards a comprehensive and horizontal approach to disas-ter prevention, either through a thematic approach or as a genuine national comprehensive approach. (See illustration below)

Considerations of the organisational set-up



7

.

The comprehensive national level will be the strategic level where overall pol-icy formulation and coordination is anchored, and where the single focal point is vested. At the thematic level, the approach encompasses several sectors and thus contains a cross-sectoral approach where different entities will cooperate and coordinate closely on a specific theme.

1.2 Conclusions Drivers of prevention Based on the analyses and observations of this study, the picture that emerges is

one where:

The drivers for an intensified effort and the development of new prevention ap-proaches are:

1. the demands stemming from EU legislation and other international commitments, and

2. the understanding that the overall risk picture is changing. Thus, coun-tries have experienced significant disasters with losses of lives and or economic values over the last decade.

Examples from the four case study countries:

In Sweden, the windstorms in 2003 were the reason for the implementation of new legislation on protection of accidents in 2004. In France, the heat wave in 2003 was the driver of the drawing up of a national heat prevention plan. In Romania, the implementation of water directive is the driver of the develop-ment of risk maps and systematic use of GIS to establish a solid basis for deci-sion-making in the field of both prevention and civil protection. In Portugal, the recent experience with forest fires, especially in 2003 and 2005 resulted in a strong focus aimed at decreasing the extent of forest fires. In 2003, over 100,000 acres of forest were destroyed by fire in Portugal, and a similar



8

.

area were destroyed in 2005. Since droughts are foreseen to become an increas-ing problem causing water shortage, the risk of forest fires is expected to persist and so is the need for prevention. Considering these developments, one may conclude that:

The overall problem The overall problem that prevention efforts in Member States aim to solve is the saving of lives, protection of the environment and of economic values of society. This could translate into an overall objective to prevent, reduce and remedy any potential threat and damage inflicted on people, property, environ-ment and society as a hole by accidents and disasters, including both natural and manmade disasters.

The specific problems and objectives that prevention efforts aim to address when considering Member States' focus and challenges would seem to relate to (disregarding the above specific aim of complying with specific external re-quirements such as EU Directives - these directives are part of the same prob-lem/objective pattern):

1 The importance of also introducing cross-cutting thinking and approaches into disaster prevention is appreciated and its demand for more compre-hensive approaches pose new challenges in terms of structures, organisa-tion and methods. The four case countries were at different levels of pro-gress in terms of developing such a full-fledged single, horizontal mecha-nism that can coordinate between CP actors and other sector actors, such as environment/sustainable development, energy, transport etc.

2 The need to establish modalities to strengthen the link between crisis man-agement/civil protection and disaster prevention. Civil protection is a field which is well understood, well developed and well-anchored. Experience gained and tools developed from this study could add good value to pre-vention policies if they are taken properly into concern and integrated into them. Examples include risk mapping; early warning; risk screening; and specific experience from disaster events as well as specific experience with effective prevention measures. This also points to the inevitable need to in-tegrate prevention concerns better into spatial planning.

3 The need to improve modalities and methods for dealing with cross-border issues. Among the critical factors here are: comparability in tools (for ex-ample for risk assessment and cost benefit arguments); how to develop ap-proaches together with neighbouring non-EU countries.

For the countries to take action as necessary, the main issues are:

1 To secure precise and ever updated information of the risk situation thus allowing for prioritisation of the efforts needed.

2 To formulate a long-term strategy to provide the basis for drawing up long-term national and supranational action plans.

The specific problems, gaps and objectives



9

.

3 To assess the effect and costs of alternative actions

The above strongly indicates that prevention, adaptation, mitigation and prepar-edness, and the linkages between the four, are the areas in which Member States and the Union have to perform effectively to achieve the above environ-mentally and socially motivated overall objectives with the lowest possible ad-ministrative burden and at a minimum of costs.

Policy options Based on the observations from the case studies and the desk research, we have developed a - somewhat simplified - path to an effective prevention approach. These steps provide a good framework for analysing the gaps, strengths and challenges at Member State level and for considering to what extent improve-ments can and will be provided with time and/or to what extent an EU interven-tion can assist in facilitating or accelerating the process.

The table below illustrates the main elements and steps that appear to be most important for disaster prevention from a national point of view. The table does not pretend to be the one and only answer to disaster prevention, but it summa-rises the observations that emerged from the country studies. It encompasses nine elements and steps, i.e.:

Main steps in disas-ter prevention



10

.

Steps Main Feature

Actors and stake-holders

Identify key national actors and stakeholders in the country, including all administrative levels of public sector, researchers, private sector and citizens and their organisations etc. Identify bilateral and interna-tional actors of relevance.

Scenarios Based on global models, the country produces sce-narios

Risk mapping Based on the previous steps, risks are mapped and translated into scenarios with variations relevant to relevant sectors at national, regional/county and municipal/local levels

Strategy Develop national, regional and local strategies de-fining goals (security objectives and performance objectives) and way to go (push/pull, which themes to include, time horizon, mainstreaming or central-ised model, overall organisational model, legislation mechanisms, central funding and financial mecha-nisms, information and communication, etc.)

Action plan Steps to be taken to accomplish strategic goals and indicators and identify relevant stakeholders/actors

Implementation Horizontal coordination of involved actors, compe-tencies, who does what

Systematic follow-up

How to measure progress systematically and bring lessons learnt back into the circuit.

Distribution of responsibilities

Who does what - allocate precise responsibilities for disaster prevention according to adequacy and effi-ciency

Resources and capacity allocation

Persons, materials, funding mechanisms etc. R

esea

rch

Exc

hang

e of

info

rmat

ion

and

best

pra

ctic

e

• Actors and stakeholders - identifying and involving these to get a full pic-ture and to get broad awareness and commitment; on a broad scale these should include citizens, enterprises, organisations, public sectors, research institutions etc.;

• Scenarios - constructing scenarios building on international standards and developing these in close collaboration with key stakeholders;

• Risk Mapping - providing valid decision information for understanding the potential disasters of the country and for prioritisation;

• Strategy - the need for a comprehensive strategy that, based on the above steps, looks further ahead and that not only considers the more recent dis-asters;

• Action Plan - the need to develop an action plan that corresponds to the strategy developed and to update this concurrently with new risk informa-



11

.

tion and with knowledge of effects of interventions based on national as well as international experience;

• Implementation - the implementation of the action plan and the capacity of the country and of the international community to coordinate, cooperate and integrate efforts is crucial;

• Systematic follow-up to ensure value for money and use of best practice _ monitoring and systematic evaluation of disaster prevention measures as to effect and cost-effectiveness will be key instruments in achieving worth-while disaster prevention;

• Distribution of responsibilities, i.e. the organisational set-up matching the problem has to be addressed. The more traditional case-by-case or sector-by-sector approach will not be able to respond to the challenges of disaster prevention, thus the Member states and EU will have to examine existing mechanisms that may be strengthened and enhanced to suit the purpose and to find out how to evolve a culture of comprehensive/horizontal ap-proach;

• Resources and capacity allocation - funding of disaster prevention is cru-cial at national as well as at EU levels. Capacity building will be required to ensure sufficient and well-trained human resources, especially as re-gards integrated approaches.

Analysing each of these steps in more detail and considering the situation at Member State level with regard to each of those steps can provide insights into the possible gaps and weaknesses that a stronger joint or aligned effort can remedy through e.g. an EU intervention in the field of disaster reduction.

This is further elaborated on in the following. At this point, we would like to summarise the important elements that may feed into the further considerations at EU level of how a possible EU intervention may be scoped, i.e. the building blocks that could be part of an EU intervention:

• Problem-oriented approach towards potential and manifested disasters rather than an administratively based approach.

• Involvement of all relevant categories and levels of actors - horizontal and vertical - and stimulation of efficient communication, coordination and cooperation between them.

• Production and updating of cross-border compatible decision informa-tion in a way that allows for well-documented priorities.

• Cross-cutting national vulnerability assessments and development of scenarios covering the EU and scaled down versions for each Member State. Afterwards, the national scenarios should be scaled down to re-

Conclusions on ele-ments of relevance to a possible EU inter-vention



12

.

gional and local levels and translated into measures relevant to each specific sector.

• Mechanisms to improve the exchange of best practices for disaster pre-vention are seen as a true EU role. This is to include soft and hard measures, e.g. physical constructions, institutional, concepts, method-ologies, etc. The European network of National Platforms for disaster reduction (under the UN/ISDR framework) was mentioned as a good example and could serve as a precursor mechanism to be implemented at EU level including all MS.

• Initiatives addressing public awareness of prevention including climate adaptation, allowing people to take wise decisions and to produce commitment.

• Concrete projects at European level to address common Pan-European problems are perceived to be a very good way of setting up networks of collaboration and of addressing problems in order to reach a common understanding and take action to wards prevention.

o A good example is coastal erosion;, a problem that is reinforced due to increasing water levels.

o Another example of a possible common issue which with ad-vantage could be tackled at European level is the development of common methodologies and approaches which could result in guidelines for specific issues.

o Examples could be a common approach to deal with the cost of inaction and the cost of prevention. This is a field in which there are many methodological issues to address, e.g. temporal and temporal-related assumptions.

o Another example is standards or common practices for risk mapping.

• Although most Member States possess a good spatial data infrastruc-ture, the need to establish European-wide monitoring capacities is well recognised. Initiatives such as GMES supported by Inspire for stan-dardisation of data collection are good examples of EU common re-sources. In particular, Romania lags behind in having access to ade-quate digital data, e.g. digital elevation model and data at the sufficient resolution.

• Access to common resources could also be in the form of sharing re-search and development results. Investments in research and develop-ment are very much seen as preventive non-structural measures where EU could play a leading role. This could be research into new crop types or tree species with improved fire resistance and into test results



13

.

of fire resistant equipment. Another example is sharing of experts, through establishing a database of thematic experts available for consul-tation on specific problems.

• Economic funding and coordination of research especially where the incremental risks arising from climate changes generate new tasks or call for solutions of existing tasks in a different perspective. In these ar-eas there seems to be a need for new competences both in sector-specific areas as well as for competences and skills in more cross-cutting and comprehensive disciplines.

• There is no singly entry point in the European Commission as regards prevention. There is the CP unit of DG ENVR, but this is mainly MIC and the Structural Funds. Such a "single entry door" should be horizon-tal in the sense of representing (or guiding to) all sectors/themes of relevance to prevention.

• It was also stressed that there is no need for any new EU institutions to deal with disaster prevention.

• The EU in collaboration with MS should provide norms for protecting the populations in terms of setting up minimal acceptance levels for risk and protection by means of a set of indicators or indexes.

• The EU should do a proof of their policies and instruments, both exist-ing and future ones, to ensure that instruments do not have adverse ef-fects on disaster prevention.

• The EU should take on itself to be catalyst of focus (watchdog) to sup-port a stable political focus on disaster prevention. This could be done through constantly keeping the focus through applying various means and mechanisms. This would include striking a balance between the types of potential disasters, thus avoiding that some types of disasters receive more attention than other disasters with equal of even more det-rimental consequences to the region concerned.

• EU should play a role in capacity building, e.g. regarding earthquakes or disaster prevention in general.

1.3 Analysing the steps - findings and recommendations on elements to bring into the framing of an EU intervention Each of the nine steps are analysed in more detail below, and findings as well as EU potential added value are outlined.



14

.

1.3.1 Actors and stakeholders Findings Since the challenges as described above can be characterised as cross-cutting

and rather diversified in nature, it is important to understand that efficient solu-tions call for involvement of a broad spectre of competences, actors, stake-holders and decision-makers. Thus, it is important at an early stage to identify relevant actors and to be aware of the fact and take into account that different perspectives are involved in the whole risk management process.

The below diagram illustrates one of the important challenges and one of the criteria of the future success of an intensified effort on disaster prevention. The diagram illustrates a possible need for strengthening the link between actors from civil protection, on the one hand, and the sectoral issues and actors on the other hand (exemplified here by environmental management).

The left hand side (civil protection) would typically be anchored, with regard to the central level, in the Ministry of the Interior or, in some cases, in Prime Min-ister's Office or in the Ministry of Defence. Policies and plans are developed that, in a fairly operational manner, tackle the needs for prevention - in terms of mitigation only - and preparedness (and response/restoration). Civil Protection plans and policies, and not least tools, are of a fairly generic nature, albeit also specific to the types of disasters they address.

The thematic or sectoral ministries, on the other hand, elaborate more strategic long-termed plans and policies that also focus on mitigation, but to a wider ex-tent also on adaptation, and if possible, prevention per se. They tend to do this on a stronger case-by-case basis, and some interviewees indicated that it can be difficult to maintain momentum and ensure the financial resources as time elapses, and the event that provoked the action gradually becomes history.

Somehow, it may be argued that there are links already. Civil protection in the figure above will typically consider the PPRR (prevention, preparedness, re-sponse, and remediation) cycle whereas the sector/theme (exemplified here by environmental management) is seen to relate more to prevention in a broader perspective, i.e. with a stronger focus on adaptation as well. Still, mitigation is an issue that is dealt with in all areas.

In various forms and to various degrees, all of the countries in the case study have cross-cutting committees in place at the national level, some also at re-gional and local (municipality) levels. It differs from country to country to which extent these horizontal groups deal with real prevention issues or only with crisis management related issues.



15

.

The EUR-OPA (2005) study observed a tendency for interviewees to define "the frame of reference and reflection is almost systematically and strictly lim-ited to their assigned competences, with no sign of any desire to consider the possible implications outside their respective spheres of competence". In this field, the present study, has identified some movements towards a more recog-nised need for enhanced horizontal coordination and collaboration.

There seems to be strong incentives to involve all vertical levels. In Portugal it was stressed that the local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster pre-vention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of their area and have local responsibilities. Similar considerations apply to France where the top-down or hierarchical approach to Civil Protection and prevention might be a drawback as less responsibility is left with the local level (communes). There is a general understanding that local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster prevention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of their area and have local responsibilities. In two of the countries this was clearly implemented:

In Portugal, through an ongoing exercise, climate change scenarios are being translated from global through national level into municipal level. This study is conducted in the municipality of Sintra to study the impact of climate change in a concrete municipality and recommend adaption and mitigation measures. This would constitute an important input to a more comprehensive approach.

Another example of the same is Sweden's way of including sectors and local level authorities in reflecting on the consequences of the national climate change scenarios and providing feedback to the production of the Swedish cli-mate adaption report, which has a disaster prevention outlook, even if this is not the central focus.

EU added value As indicated above, most of the case study countries are already aware of the importance of involving the local level. This involvement could be encouraged further by stimulating the exchange of best practice in the field between Mem-ber States.

Private sector None of the countries has defined the role of the private sector explicitly and fully so far. There are examples of initiatives where private companies take an active part by financing part of the preparedness on voluntary bases. For in-stance in Portugal, the extension and severity of forest fires motivated both citi-zen groups as well as the private sector to demonstrate social responsibility. In the aftermath of the forest fires, the private sector actors have as their contribu-tion to prevention donated tools and equipment to various actors. This initiative is called the ECHO Movement.

EU added value There is evidently a need to clarify the role of the private sector with respect to climate adaption. It would be useful and necessary jointly to formulate their role. Furthermore, in some cases there seems to be a need for a common EU voice to argue with the industry about common standards e.g. for different

Involve all vertical levels



16

.

kinds of equipment recognising that the individual Member State is not itself a sufficiently strong party.

Insurance The French special feature is one of insurance. France has a tradition for insurance arrangements in relation to disasters. The law of 1982 instituted a legal system for natural disaster compensation that is based on the principle that the federal government is responsible for protecting the welfare of its citizens. The parties to this system are the State, the insurance sector and the insurance policy owners. A compulsory payment is imposed on all insurance policies in the order of 12 %. Recently, it was decided that 8 % of the 12 % should go into a specific pool destined for preventive actions and studies. The State reinsures and guarantees the payments, and the insurance companies manage the system.

In Romania, considerations of an insurance coverage to be introduced with a solidarity angle are ongoing. Romania faces considerable challenges both in coping with increasing disaster risks and in implementing adequate organisa-tional, administrative, technical and economic issues related to implementing preventive measures.

EU added value It may be questioned whether the existence of insurances puts a limit to efforts to stimulate prevention. As damage payments are counted on, the incentive to engage in preventive actions may be limited. The question is what role the in-surance companies should play. There appears to be a common interest in re-search into this field to clarify the advantages and the drawbacks of the differ-ent national solutions to insurances.

Citizens From the study we can conclude that there is a tendency towards a gradual loss of a prevention culture at the more individual level. Somehow, prevention has become more viewed as a societal responsibility at the expense of individual precautions. This actually points to an important dilemma between on the one hand providing a strong sense of security for society and, and on the other hand inciting citizens, industries and other actors to take appropriate preventive measures proactively.

EU added value Further mobilising the citizens and the private sector as part of a social responsibility and defining roles and responsibilities (in broad terms) could contribute positively towards disaster prevention. Initiatives addressing public awareness of prevention, including climate adaptation, allowing people to take wise decisions should be a part of the effort. One example of such an initiative is a large scale and comprehensive awareness raising campaign which was launched to prevent manmade forest fires in Portugal. The campaign seems to have been successful.

There seems to be a need for involvement of all relevant categories and levels of actors - horizontal and vertical - and a need for further stimulation of effi-cient communication, coordination and cooperation between them. The ex-change of best practice and development of new tools appears to be of common interest for the Member States.



17

.

Furthermore, there is a growing need to raise public awareness and enhance training and education to engage the broader population, businesses and ad-ministration actively in prevention issues.

1.3.2 Scenarios Findings Risk and vulnerability analysis, including risk mapping, is an important first

step of the comprehensive approach to the efficient prevention and civil protec-tion and the planning process in relation to both. The next step will be the de-velopment of scenarios. The different actors generate specific scenarios based on immediate relevancy and assess the risks and vulnerabilities associated with each scenario. This approach provides the possibility that risks can be assessed according to likelihood and consequences while vulnerabilities can be assessed according to existing capacities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the type of incident or disasters in the scenario. The development of relevant and well-documented scenarios are crucial since they serve as reference for the fur-ther steps concerning prioritising and planning.

Hence, a strong research layer and tradition and the willingness to invest funds and resources are important drivers for the development of scenarios and, in turn, for promoting prevention. Cases in point are the Swedish exposition "Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities, SOU 2007:60", and the Portuguese exposition "Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project" which have been important drivers and a common reference for the efforts done in the field of prevention. A second phase of the Portuguese project sought to apply the general methodology of project SIAM (climate scenarios as an input to each sector's impact assessment) at a smaller geographic scale. The intention was to provide responses to deci-sion-makers in the public sector, at a scale compatible with decision-making processes. In Romania, the lack of a national vulnerability assessment and lack of mapping resources seem to influence the development and use of scenarios negatively. In France, the 2006 climate change adaptation strategy contributed to creating a national common outset and overall goals for the efforts on pre-ventive initiatives.

In the case study countries, scenarios in general are integrated as an essential part of the approach to prevention even though Romania seems to suffer from lack of fundamental data to construct appropriate and updated scenarios.

EU added value Cross-cutting national vulnerability assessments and development of scenarios covering the Union and a scaled down version for each Member State should be made. Afterwards, the national scenarios should be scaled dawn to regional and local levels and translated into measures relevant to each specific sector.

1.3.3 Risk mapping Findings Risk mapping plays a key role in planning and preparing for different scenarios

and consequently for reducing the impacts of hazards. Furthermore, risk map-ping strongly supports efforts devoted to prioritisation; information of the pub-lic and establishment of effective early warning systems.



18

.

All case study countries have procedures in place for risk assessment and map-ping for country-specific risk areas at national, regional and local levels.

As to the essential task of taking stock of risk analysis, major steps have been taken. In Belgium, an inventory covering the entire country has been com-pleted, the national vulnerability assessments rely on tools such as risk map-ping. France is in the process of charting risks and their typology at both na-tional and department levels whereas Romania will include these features in their programming for coming years. Concerning decision information in Ro-mania, there is a lack of fundamental digital mapping resources, e.g. high-resolution land maps, including land use and digital terrain models as the basis for deriving good quality risk and vulnerability mapping on a local scale.

The combined disaster capacity of Sweden concerning decision information including risk mapping must be said to be rather solid. For instance, Sweden has established procedures for undertaking risk and vulnerability mapping at national, regional and local levels as input to spatial planning and land use. In Portugal, risk mapping is done in relation to the major potential disasters, i.e. forest fires, flooding and industrial hazards.

Portugal has, at an early stage, made vulnerability assessments and predicted the effects of climate change for the country. The work has pointed to possible mitigation efforts and to a lesser extent also to adaption measures. France has well-established spatial data infrastructure and monitoring capacities and a long tradition for risk mapping.

In Romania, the intent is to develop an operational GIS system incorporating both hydrologic data with land use information and risk mapping. However, the GIS expertise is not fully developed; neither at the water basin management level nor at the county level.

Sweden has a well-functioning spatial data infrastructure - including access to high quality digital spatial data and a general broad implementation and knowl-edge of GIS at all levels.

All of the case study countries recognise risk mapping as a fundamental tool for effective prioritisation and planning in relation to preventive efforts and civil protection. Some are already experienced while others are at an earlier stage but plan to take further initiatives.

EU added value Although most member states have a good spatial data infrastructure, the need to have European-wide monitoring capacities is well recognised. Initiatives such as GMES supported by Inspire for standardisation of data collection were mentioned as good examples of EU common resources. Romania in particular lags behind in terms of access to adequate digital data, e.g. digital elevation models and data with the sufficient resolution. Some experience has been gained in terms of letting the insurance sector play an active part in risk map-ping; a role that could be better defined and perhaps even enhanced.

There seem to be major differences in budgets for risk mapping in the studied countries, hence countries that have scarce resources to spend in this area there



19

.

is a need for supplementary funding and exchange of expertise to enhance fur-ther diffusion of risk mapping.

1.3.4 Strategy

Findings So far, none of the four study countries has a fully fledged disaster prevention strategy, but all are taking important steps in that direction. However, the need for applying, to a larger degree, a more horizontal approach is recognised in Member States. The drivers for a horizontal approach have been identified as deriving from past disaster events (such as forest fire, flooding and heat waves), the process of defining climate change adaptation plans and from legislation (e.g. implementing the water directive and now the flooding directive). All the Member States studied are somewhere in the process of developing a climate change adaptation plan and consequently of establishing more cross-cutting forums such as the Sustainable Development Committee in France.

Sweden has produced the comprehensive report "Sweden facing climate change" which focuses mainly on climate change adaption, but also on disaster prevention. It makes recommendations for an organisational set-up and consti-tutes an important platform for decision-making.

Portugal has produced risk scenarios and has implemented a set of prevention measures, especially in the area related to the risk of forest fires. An adaption strategy is forthcoming.

At the national level, a single entry point would provide for efficiency; a bal-anced approach that considers different types of risk exposure and disasters; momentum and longer termed stability in regard to prevention policy; and a watchdog function as regards implementation, compliance and enforcement - at the national (policy, legislation and some financial responsibilities) and the lo-cal (implementation including enforcement) levels.

EU added value The EU could provide a single EU door to prevention covering all the horizontal aspects relating to it.

The EU could facilitate better information and experience sharing among Member States also with a view to identifying and building up best practice approaches.

The EU could assist in developing joint EU standards and methods for example for cost benefit assessments (not indicated though by all countries) to facilitate improved joint best practice developments and joint efforts in regard to cross-border disasters.

Also, legal requirements are seen as an important driver. Thus, the EU obliga-tions in regard to the Seveso Directive and in regard to flooding have clearly spurred prevention efforts in Member States. Similarly, the international obliga-tion on countries to prepare national adaptation plans for climate change has accelerated developments in this field.



20

.

The conceptualisation and definitions of prevention policies thus develop very much along with these more or less external drivers: the recognised need for action after major disasters and the adoption of initiatives at the EU level. Thus, prevention policies reflect the gradual building up of experience and lessons learnt from the different sectoral and thematic initiatives and build on the ex-pertise and experience of civil protection.

At all national levels as well as at EU level, it is a challenge to avoid barriers arising from initiatives and legislation within sector-specific areas, that has un-intended negative effects on further improvements in the areas of prevention and civil protection. An example is the existence of EU legislation which does not allow a Member State to give financial support to relocation of Seveso-regulated companies. The challenge seems to be to develop a "proof mecha-nism" that considers whether initiatives and regulations in separate sectors and in thematic areas have a negative effect on an overall prevention approach or strategy.

1.3.5 Action plan Findings As observed earlier, no fully fledged action plans for disaster prevention are yet

in place in the countries studied. Nevertheless, a number of important initiatives and experience from earlier disasters have produced initiatives and measures.

In all Member States studied, the management of the adaptation and risk planning is usually the responsibility of a given Ministry, in other words a the-matic or sectoral management structure. For instance, forest fires usually fall under the Ministry of Agriculture and forestry, while flooding management usually belongs under the Ministry of Environment/Ecology. Prevention plan-ning also occurs mainly as thematic initiatives, e.g. heat wave prevention plan, forest fire prevention plan. Because of the thematic focus, risk assessment also appears to be an isolated thematic exercise with little data sharing with other thematic areas and sectors.

EU added value The need for facilitating the formulation of action plans could be supported by the EU through initiatives that support benchmarking, exchange of best prac-tices and keep political focus on the area. Initiatives such as the Green Paper on Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action as well as the regional meetings held were found to be useful mechanisms.

1.3.6 Implementation Findings Of importance to successful implementation of prevention policies are the

strengths and resources available in a country in the form of institutional capac-ity, physical capacity, expert knowledge, research and development resources, spatial data and information, financial resources, and social resources. Even if all these ingredients are present there might still be barriers to overcome in or-der to get all actors and resources into play. Such hindrances are most often of institutional nature and due to the different mind sets and priorities among dif-ferent actors.

EU added value Even if some Member States, such as France and Sweden, are rather self-contained in terms of progress towards a coherent disaster prevention plan,



21

.

there is a need for a common reference for disaster planning at EU level. The potential added value of having access to common resources and the opportu-nity to exchange best practice and experience with other Member States is seen as constituting a great potential.

EU policies such as the Seveso Directive, Water Directive and now the Flood-ing Directives together with cross-border projects usually funded under the In-terreg Programme has been important drivers not only towards an integrated approach but also towards lifting the standards in general concerning a specific issue. A further focus on cross-border issues and a coherent strategy focusing on and integrating prevention strategies into for instance Interreg-funded pro-jects are aspects that are likely to reinforce both implementation and capacity building in Member States.

1.3.7 Systematic follow-up Findings There are indications in Member States that prevention tends to be most in

focus immediately after a disaster - and reservations were made to the effect that it can be difficult to maintain political momentum and budgetary alloca-tions for the development, and not least, the implementation of a long-termed, more comprehensive prevention policy.

So far, prevention policies appear to be have been very much framed and adopted on a one-cause-at-a-time basis provoked through recent events with (economic) damage or loss of lives. Examples of such interventions are the ac-tions taken to prevent forest fires in Portugal and the heat wave plans developed in France.

Also, legal requirements are seen as an important driver. Thus, the EU obliga-tions in regard to the Seveso Directive and in regard to flooding have clearly spurred prevention efforts in Member States. Similarly, the international obliga-tion to prepare national adaptation plans for climate change has accelerated de-velopments in this field.

EU added value The EU should provide for systematic follow-up to ensure value for money and use of best practice. Monitoring and systematic evaluation of disaster preven-tion measures as to effect and cost-effectiveness will be key instruments in achieving worthwhile disaster prevention.

The EU should accept responsibility for acting as a catalyst for (watchdog) supporting a stable political focus on disaster prevention. One way of doing this could be by constantly keeping the focus through applying various means and mechanisms. This would include striking a balance between the types of poten-tial disasters, thus avoiding that some types are more on the agenda than other types, with equal of even more detrimental consequences.

Since one of the main drivers for prevention is political focus, it seems obvious that the EU should stimulate the political focus in Member States. One way to do this could be to encourage the Member States to deliver yearly reports which would contribute to both exchange of best practice and motivate attainment of



22

.

objectives. Similar reports have already been submitted in several Member States, such as e.g. Romania, Denmark and Sweden.

1.3.8 Distribution of responsibilities Findings While a country like France has a highly centralised structure, others such as

Portugal and Sweden are much more decentralised with responsibilities being de-concentrated to regional and local levels. It appears that in Sweden and Por-tugal the decentralised organisation is seen as a strategic approach to disaster prevention. The understanding here is that knowledge of local conditions and the cross-sectoral approach at the local level is a strength. This must be sup-plemented by national initiatives. Thus in the two countries, the integrated comprehensive and horizontal approach at the local level to a number of issues including civil protection and disaster prevention in combination with the local knowledge and understanding is built upon as part of developing the approach to disaster prevention. Furthermore, it seems that the strategic choices of the two countries point towards a comprehensive and horizontal approach to disas-ter prevention, either through a thematic approach or as a genuine national, comprehensive approach.

EU added value This is mainly a domain where national action must take place. However, the EU could facilitate exchange of best practice as needed.

1.3.9 Resources and capacity allocation Findings Since the incremental risks arising from climate changes generate new tasks or

call for solutions of existing tasks in a different perspective, it appears that there is to some extent a need for new competences in sector- specific areas as well as competencies and skills in more cross cutting and comprehensive disci-plines. In all countries to a varying degree, there is a lack of sufficient and well-trained human resources.

In Portugal, there is in general a strong focus on how scarce financial resources make it crucial to prioritise on an informed basis. This is also the case for Ro-mania. The country lacks both expertise and financial resources which consti-tute a main hindrance to ambitious planning. By way of example, flood preven-tion is compromised by decades of lack of maintenance of dykes and river dams due to shortage of financial resources in the 1980's.

In Portugal, no cost estimates of inaction versus adaption/prevention have been made in the field of e.g. forest fire prevention. This renders it difficult to evalu-ate the cost efficiency of measures put in place. It would be useful to assess the impact of the measures put in place as an input to future prioritisation.

Financing mechanism In Portugal, a national financing mechanism was set up in the aftermath of the forest fires., Established in 2004, the Portuguese Forest Fund has a budget of 30 million EUR per year. 60 % is earmarked for forest fire prevention.

EU added value The lack of common methodologies, in particular with regard to economic assessments, and common methods for analysis and presentation is a barrier to an effective and truly constructive dialogue between two or more individual Member States on possible cross-border issues and to sharing data, information,



23

.

experience and knowledge. The EU could play an important role in facilitating common methodology and assessments.

1.3.10 Research Findings A strong research layer and tradition and the willingness to invest funds and

resources are important drivers for promoting prevention. Examples are e.g. the Swedish exposition "Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities, SOU 2007:60", and the Portuguese exposition "Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project" which have been important drivers and a common reference for the efforts made in the field of prevention. The French climate change adaptation strategy of 2006 contributed to creating a national common outset and setting overall goals for the efforts on preventive initiatives.

In Sweden, the Commission on Climate and Vulnerability was appointed by the Swedish Government in June 2005 to assess the impacts at regional and local levels of global climate change, including an assessment of both costs and benefits to the Swedish society. The core assignment of the Commission has been to examine society's vulnerability to extreme weather events and long-term climate change and to assess the need for various sectors of society to adapt to a changed climate.

In general, lack of resources including financial resources is a barrier to devel-opment and progress in the field of prevention both in the area of research and development and in the area of real capacity building. E.g. Romania lacks fund-ing for research and studies in e.g. flooding. In order to activate all relevant re-sources in society steps have yet to be taken in terms of defining the role of the private sector in climate adaptation. In Portugal this need was articulated as the role of the private sector is still unclear. It will be useful and necessary to jointly formulate their role.

EU added value The EU should provide even more coordinated EU financed research and developments to improve prevention in particular with regard to high priority topics and with a focus also on joint issues such as coastal erosion.

The EU should establish an EU Centre of Excellence which could for example provide for the systematic and easy access to experience and lessons learnt; take the lead in developing operational methods for cost-benefit assessments and other important tools to assist the framing of comprehensive prevention strategies.

1.3.11 Additional recommendations of a possible EU intervention Judging from the case studies and building on the desk research, the recom-mendations may be further expanded to:

• An EU intervention should not call for the establishment of new national organisational structures;

• Consider the role of and important contribution from an effective, well-enforced, spatial planning system in disaster prevention;



24

.

• Take a strong role in research and development with regard to knowledge, procedures, skills, technologies and equipment;

• Put a strong emphasis on building up a single point of entry at the EU level as regards prevention, and possibly call on Member States to establish a similar entry point in each Member State;

• Consider the extent to which EU mechanisms could benefit from coordina-tion vis-à-vis the ISDR national platforms and the European platform.



25

.

2 Introduction This report constitutes the draft final report on a study to consider: "Member States' Approaches to Prevention Policy - A Critical Analysis". The study was undertaken by COWI in collaboration with DHI. The study commenced in mid-September 2007, and the draft final report was submitted in late January 2008.

The study commenced in October 2007 and was undertaken in parallel to the study on "Prevention of Natural and Manmade Disasters - the Community Set-ting".

The purpose of these two studies is to inform the Commission and feed into the Commission's ongoing work on disaster prevention policies. The DG Environ-ment's Directorate of Communication, Legal Affairs and Civil Protection must submit a proposal for the direction of a possible European strategy on preven-tion of natural and manmade disasters by the end of 2008. This study, and the parallel study on the possible Community Setting, will feed into this process. Given the current stage of the process, both studies are considered to be of a more explorative nature. Thus, this study investigates into current practices and modes of operation in Member States thereby contributing to the efforts to frame an EU initiative which aligns with the Principles of Subsidiarity and of Proportionality and thereby proves true value-added to Member States of a na-ture which is supportive of measures already in place.

Outputs According to the Terms of Reference for the study, it should provide:

• A critical analysis of the prevention concepts in a number of representative Member States;

• A critical analysis of how prevention instruments and/or actions in the Member States intersect or are connected with each other;

• Conclusions on the essential features of comprehensive strategies imple-mented in the Member States;

• An assessment of the potential added value and constraints of the imple-mentation of an EU comprehensive approach on disaster prevention within Member States and possible recommendations.

To deliver this, the Terms of Reference call for the study to:

Background and purpose of the study



26

.

• Provide information on the existing and planned prevention and risk as-sessment/management concepts at Member State level;

• Provide information on how prevention policies and actions have been de-fined and conceptualised;

• Analyse the conditions necessary for the implementation of prevention policies at the different administrative levels;

• Identify the links between disaster response/preparedness on the one side and mitigation/prevention policies and instruments on the other.

Study phases The study comprised the following essential steps:

• Inception phase (in strong coordination with the other study on the Com-munity Setting). The inception phase served to delineate the scope, build-ing up the understanding of prevention, in particular with a view to civil protection; initiating the desk study and identifying the key sources of relevant information to consult.

• The interim phase during which the study concentrated on the desk study. This phase involved the screening of quite substantial amounts of literature and a more in-depth study of particularly relevant literature. The outputs from this phase consisted in the elaboration of a draft version Chapter 2 of this report on the main challenges and perceptions. Furthermore, the in-terim phase provided an overview of information that could be immedi-ately obtained on prevention issues in Member States. Based on this, the interim phase produced preliminary conclusions (to be further investigated through the case study phase). Last, the desk study assisted to provide in-formation to inform the choice of case study countries.

• Case study phase. This phase consisted in the collection of information on the four selected case countries. The planning, organisation and conduct of four field trips, and the reporting on those constituted an essential part of this phase.

• Analysis phase. This phase puts together the results obtained from the pre-vious phases and considers also the preliminary observations and conclu-sions derived from the parallel study on the Community setting. An impor-tant part of this phase has also been the conduct of a one-day workshop with invited participants from the case study countries. Based on this, the essential observations, conclusions and recommendations are derived.

Structure of this report This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 3 elaborates on and explains in detail about the overall findings with regard to questions posed in the Terms of Reference; prevention concepts and approaches in Member States and the potential added value and constraints for an EU comprehensive approach. In answering these questions, the chapter looks into existing and planned concepts; how policies and actions have been



27

.

defined and conceptualised; necessary conditions at different administrative levels; and the links between disaster response/preparedness and mitiga-tion/prevention.

Chapter 4 explains in more depth about the observations and conclusions from the case studies. The chapter is organised so as to provide a good and structured presentation of the interesting findings. Thus, the chapter explains in more de-tail about observations with regard to capacity for prevention;, prevention ap-proaches; drivers for prevention; and views expressed with regard to the added value of a possible EU intervention. In addition, this chapter summarises inter-esting, and country-specific features.

Chapter 5 outlines and details the generic list of necessary conditions and es-sential features for a comprehensive disaster prevention approach.

Annex 1 explains in more depth about the methodology applied, and how it evolved as the study progressed.

We would like to thank all the individuals who have kindly shared their knowl-edge and views with us while conducting this study. Nevertheless, it should be underlined that views and observations contained in this report remain the sole responsibility of the consultant. It should also be stressed that this study is, as previously mentioned, of a highly explorative nature. Hence, the views and opinions expressed by the individuals consulted cannot in anyway be consid-ered as reflections of national viewpoints or positions or official standpoints of the institutions or organisations that we have visited. We have aimed to consult with a rather limited, and selected, number of individuals. They have kindly shared their knowledge and views with us as individuals. Still, the consequent compilation, analysis and derivation of conclusions remain the sole responsibil-ity of the consultant.



28

.

3 Overall findings A comparative analysis of legislation on major hazard management in the 26 Member countries of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Management was made in 2002-20031. This study pointed to interesting conclusions (quotations) among which are:

• A highly complex distribution of powers and responsibilities;

• Lack of co-ordination and of an integrated approach among the four com-ponents of risk management (prevention, crisis management, rehabilita-tion, sanctions & monitoring). More specifically, the study draws attention to the fact that there is generally a very efficient organisation of crisis management characterised by very effective coordination, but limited to the crisis management phase.

• There is, with the exception of France, little provision of structural reha-bilitation, rehabilitation often being limited to emergency budgets and the resources made available in the emergency conditions immediately follow-ing a disaster. France has, as it is further explained in chapter 5, a natural and technological hazard insurance implemented by law;

• Few sanctions and monitoring measures, often as a result of lack of inspec-tor resources, with controls being too repressive and not dissuasive enough.

Further, this study observed that rescue operations and crisis management have improved considerably, reflected in strong co-ordination and a more horizontal legal approach where all aspects are addressed under the authority of a single body for each type of hazard.

However, when it comes to prevention this study found little or no co-ordination characterised by a strong vertical approach where each authority has its own powers and its sphere of competence. The study also pointed to the fact, however, that many countries had tried to find solutions - i.e. administrative structures and/or mechanisms - that could provide for early involvement of all relevant authorities in order to avert disasters.

1 Conducted by the Higher Institute for Emergency Planning (ISPU) at the request of the Parties to the Council of Europe's EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement.



29

.

This section provides a summary of the main observations and conclusions from the case study - and the desk study - as regards the main questions of the Terms of Reference.

3.1 Prevention concepts Case study findings As regards the prevention concepts, this study indicates that a unique and

common understanding of the concept of disaster prevention does not exist. However, the study has experienced that the following tools are generally con-sidered to be part of prevention, and it also points to a slight indication that pre-vention is mainly, although not solely, tackled as mitigation in the sense of lim-iting the effects of disasters:

• Risk mapping • Early warning • Spatial planning • Building codes • Education and awareness • Exchange of information on best practices • Emergency plans and exercises

These issues tended to be in focus from the outset among many of the inter-viewees consulted during the case studies. One may argue that this reflects an-other important observation, namely that the interpretation of prevention from the outset has been rooted in a civil protection understanding. The longer termed views with more emphasis on adaptation and on thematic issues are gradually gaining momentum and are driven more by the thematic and sectoral interests or requirements.

Other findings A similar observation was actually made in the study 2005 EUR-OPA study2, which is also illustrated by the fact that the "same concepts are used in different contexts with no explanation of the content and come to mean different things to different people)":

• In environmental law, prevention essentially concerns measures to mini-mise risk exposure;

• In civil protection, prevention involves crisis management preparedness measures or pre alerts and/or alert measures to prevent accidents from de-generating into crises or measures to limit harmful effects;

• Preparedness often includes planning of the other measures involved, but measures are not always specified with the result that they differ from country to country;

• Information to the population about the risks and the measures to be taken is sometimes placed under "prevention" and sometimes under prepared-ness.

2 EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, Comparative Analysis of the Interministerial Man-agement of Major Hazard (Belgium, France, Russia, Bulgaria)



30

.

Spatial planning One should note though that spatial planning is strongly related to the longer termed approach to prevention and has been so historically. Still, it may be ar-gued that the prevention aspects have come more into focus in this regard as well. In this respect, the French approach consisting of risk zoning (yellow, or-ange and red) is a good example where the concepts of risk zoning has a long history, but is likely to be readdressed in a wider prevention framework as far as spatial planning is concerned. As to spatial planning and building codes, these prevention concepts or tools can be argued to be related very much to in-dividual property rights (and obligations) and urbanisation in general.

3.2 Conceptualisation and definitions of prevention policies

Case-by-case driven Till now, prevention policies appear to be have been very much framed and adopted on a one-cause-at-a-time basis provoked through recent events with (economic) damage or loss of lives. Examples of such interventions are the ac-tions taken to prevent forest fires in Portugal and the heat wave plans developed in France.

Also, legal requirements are seen as an important driver. Thus, the EU obliga-tions in regard to the Seveso Directive and in regard to flooding have clearly spurred prevention efforts in Member States. Similarly, the international obliga-tion to prepare national adaptation plans for climate change has accelerated de-velopments in this field.

The conceptualisation and definitions of prevention policies thus develop very much along with these more or less external drivers: the recognised need for action after major disasters and the adoption of initiatives at the EU level. Thus, prevention policies reflect the gradual building up of experience and lessons learnt from the different sectoral and thematic initiatives, including also the ex-pertise and experience accumulated in the field of civil protection.

Lessons learnt from implementing the SEVESO Directive in Romania.

Statistical data:

• 30 % of the Romanian territory may be affected by technological disasters • 8 million live in risk areas (nearly 40 % of the population)

3.3 Sectoral, thematic or comprehensive policies Often, distinction is made between three approaches to prevention:

• A sectoral approach; • A thematic approach; • A comprehensive approach.

Conceptualisation develops along with the external drivers



31

.

The comprehensive national level will be the strategic level where overall pol-icy formulation and coordination are anchored, and where the single focal point is vested. At the thematic level, the approach encompasses several sectors and thus contains a cross-sectoral approach where different entities will cooperate and coordinate closely on a specific theme.

However, in reality it is difficult to draw a clear line between the three ap-proaches as the terms only involve one among many dimensions.

A sectoral approach can be considered as an approach where the responsibility and the actions are based almost exclusively within one, or maybe two, sectoral ministries. One example of such a sectoral approach is the implementation of the Seveso Directive addressing the pollution risk of the industrial sector, al-though the actual responsibility for implementing the Directive often lies with the Ministry of Interior (Civil Protection, disaster management).

A thematic approach can be considered as an approach where the theme in question drives the framing of the policy or intervention. In some - a few - cases this could coincide with a sectoral approach if the theme can be narrowly defined to relate to one, or maybe two, sectors. The Flooding Directive and the initiatives in Portugal on forest fires can be regarded as such thematic ap-proaches. They necessitate the involvement of a range of sectors, and they in-clude not only the central layer, but also local communities and individual ac-tors. The latter can be argued to introduce more comprehensive features into the thematic approach

A fully comprehensive approach would be one where all themes are considered within the same framework. A fully comprehensive approach implies that a prevention policy is framed in a manner that properly balances the different types of disasters on a level playing field and on a common basis.

The study has observed:

• A shift in focus where sectoral approaches are either replaced by thematic approaches or becoming inspired by thematic approaches in the sense of



32

.

emphasising more joint coordination or consultation/involvement of other sectors;

• The efforts to formulate climate change adaptation strategies call for more comprehensive approaches involving both thematic considerations as well sectoral actors, e.g. industry, agriculture, transport, spatial planning, etc.

Thus, judging also from the case studies, the obligations to prepare climate change adaptation plans combined with the accelerated recognition of the pre-vention challenges reinforced by climate change have paved the way for a more profound understanding of the need to orientate prevention policies in a more horizontal direction and to ensure the functioning vertical links.

Example: The impact of incidents of extreme temperatures (theme) will have an impact on the following sectors (non ex-haustive):

Health (heat waves, cold waves, types of diseases, spread of infections)

Ministry of Health

Building structures Ministry of Housing, spatial planning

Need for heating and air conditioning Ministry of Energy

Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture

Nature and ecosystems Ministry of Environ-ment

The case studies also pointed to the important observation that a more compre-hensive approach, or at least a "single door to prevention" at the national level could play an important role. Most significantly this would assist in providing a balanced approach founded on comprehensive analyses, but also on ensuring stability in prevention policy focus; advocating prevention issues vis-à-vis sec-tors and the local levels and acting as a watchdog monitoring implementation of agreed plans and actions.

In this regard, the efforts taken in all countries to develop climate change adap-tation strategies and plans must be considered as the most distinct example of moving towards more comprehensive strategies at national levels, albeit still being scoped and defined by the climate change challenge.



33

.

Example from Sweden concerning the horizontal approach to Climate adaptation planning

3.4 Prevention structures and the links between response/preparedness and mitigation/restoration

Spatial planning and the structures around this is an essential framework for prevention policies. Spatial planning and building codes are defined centrally, among other things through the use of risk mapping tools; further operational-ised at the more local level; and are also enforced at the local level. Spatial planning stipulates rules for settlements, industrial and economic activity, and construction of new buildings.

The role of the insurance sector must be underlined, in particular in the light of the increasingly important role insurance schemes and the insurance sector may play in the future, in particular in the light of the challenges and threats posed by climate change.

In France, the insurance scheme is based on solidarity in the sense that partici-pation in the scheme is mandatory; and payments are proportional to police value and hence the same for all. The scheme is defined and conceptualised by the State, and the insurance sector manages it. The State guarantees payments. The strength of such a system is that is provides a sense of security to all citi-zens and other property owners; it is easily administered; and the overall rules are defined by the State and further operationalised and implemented at the lo-cal level (by Mayors) instructed by the Prefect. The insurance system is strongly related to stipulations in regard to spatial planning, and compensation is partly dependent on compliance with civil protection requirements in terms of response; preparedness and emergency plans. Romania is in the process of



34

.

adapting a system that will inherit many of the same essential features but with a main focus on the social aspects. In Denmark, the insurance industry has started to raise the issue cf adjusting property premiums to reflect the actual risk of damage arising from flooding, storms, etc to the individual properties.

Prevention culture All these merits are important. However, one may argue that they do not assist in building up what one could call a prevention culture. On the contrary, devel-opments over the last decade indicate more and more neglect of disaster risks at the individual level. For example, more and more settlements are close to rivers where the risk of flooding is significant and, individuals are less prepared for disasters. Property prices tend to reflect the attractiveness of the position of a property rather than its vulnerability to disasters. Following this, it may be ar-gued that if there is no relation between the individual preventive measures and the compensation level (of the insurance premium); there is no incentive to se-cure settlements in less vulnerable areas. Still, the importance of providing in-dividual citizens and property owners with a certain level of security should be stressed, and it is worth noting that the insurance uptake in a relatively poor country such as Romania is a low as 10 %.

Developing a better prevention culture can reduce the loss of lives and health, and it could reduce the effects and economic costs of disasters. Education and awareness such as the curricula developed in Romania, and the efforts by Civil Protection authorities and other institutions in France are important tools in this regard. However, the effect could be further enhanced by economic incentives and awareness campaigns. Public access to risk vulnerability maps is one ex-ample that provides the link between awareness, economic incentives and in-surance risk. The launch of such initiatives could be further integrated into the legal framework (France has made the first move in this regard) and/or be driven by the insurance sector that might have an economic interest in framing such incentives. Their economic incentive would of course relate to the risk that they take.

Forest fires in Portugal

One of the most advanced areas of approach conception in Portugal is the area of forest fire protection. Given the major challenges that Portugal has been facing in recent years, a number of actions have been taken in the field of mitigation, adaption and pre-vention.

As a result of the focus on forest fires, the Civil Protection Authority is working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, both in coordination but also in very close collabora-tion. Another feature is that civil protection staff is increasingly focusing on prevention and e.g. proactively providing advice at municipal and regional levels on prevention measures relevant to the risk of forest fires.

In addition to this, the extension of the forest fires and the severity of it have motivated both citizens groups as well as the private sector to demonstrate social responsibility



35

.

Prevention structures The below diagram illustrates one of the important challenges and one of the criteria for the future success of an intensified effort in disaster prevention. The diagram illustrates a possible need for strengthening the link between civil pro-tection, on the one hand, and the sectoral issues on the other hand (exemplified here by environmental management).

As mentioned, the left hand side (civil protection) is typically anchored, with regard to the central level, in the Ministry of the Interior or, in some cases, in Prime Minister's Office. Policies and plans are developed that, in a fairly opera-tional manner, tackle the needs for prevention - in terms of mitigation only - and preparedness (and response/restoration). Civil Protection plans and poli-cies, and not least tools, are of a fairly generic nature, albeit also specific to the types of disasters they address.

The thematic or sectoral ministries, on the other hand, elaborate more strategic long termed plans and policies that also focus on mitigation too, but to a wider extent also on adaptation, and if possible, prevention per se. They tend to do this on a stronger case-by-case basis, and some interviewees indicated that it is difficult to maintain momentum and ensure the financial resources as time elapses and the event that provoked the action gradually becomes history.

Somehow, it may be argued that there are links already. Civil protection in the figure will typically consider the PPRR (prevention, preparedness, response, and remediation) cycle whereas the sector/theme (exemplified here by envi-ronmental management) is seen to relate more to prevention in a broader per-spective, i.e. with a stronger focus on adaptation as well. Still, mitigation is an issue that is dealt with in all areas.

As shown in the figure above, a good example of how structures have devel-oped to properly bridge gaps, , is the developments in Portugal in regard to the prevention of forest fires.

The EUR-OPA (2005) study observed a tendency for interviewees to define "the frame of reference and reflection is almost systematically and strictly lim-ited to their assigned competences, with no sign of any desire to consider the possible implications outside their respective spheres of competence". In this field, the present study has however pointed to some movements towards a more recognised need for more horizontal coordination and collaboration.

The study also strongly advocates the encouragement of national authorities to introduce consultation procedures in order to develop a comprehensive risk



36

.

management strategy including the definition of common goals, sharing of re-sponsibilities and allocation of resources. The study takes note of observed de-velopments in this regard in the fields of preparatory legal work (France), the Seveso Directive (Belgium), and a continued vertical approach where the inte-gration takes place more at the implementation stage (Bulgaria).

3.5 Intersection across Member States of prevention policies or actions

Intersections across Member States can be observed, primarily in areas charac-terised by cross-border issues. Examples include collaboration on prevention of avalanches and landslides in the Alps between the Alpine countries; collabora-tion on the Iberian peninsular regarding flooding and droughts. Spain and Por-tugal have a bilateral agreement regarding flooding. In addition, they have re-cently jointly commissioned a study on biodiversity. Portugal expects to take lessons learnt from Spain on adaption strategy, as Spain has progressed more in this field; and there is cooperation between Germany, France, Holland, Bel-gium and Switzerland concerning flood management of the Rhine and Meuse river basin3. Many interviewees consulted during the case studies put a strong emphasis on the important role played by EU structural measures in support of this, such as the Interreg programme.

The role played by supra-national agreements or legislation, such as the EU Flooding Directive, should be mentioned here. The Flooding Directive is struc-tured around river basins, and as such, it pays less attention to national borders and thereby calls for a strong coordination across borders wherever river basins and catchment areas are interconnected.

In addition, the ISDR-driven initiative to build up national platforms and to fa-cilitate experience sharing and best practice development on this basis - also vis-à-vis other parts of the world, should be mentioned. Still, the emphasis and importance attached to the participation in this varies substantially between Member States, and there is a tendency to let it play a bigger role, the less the country in question is developed in regard to prevention.

Important to mention in this regard is also the establishment of the European Platform, under the same umbrella. The members, and founders, are currently France, Germany and Switzerland while others including Monaco and Romania have indicated an interest to join in as well. The platform has no mandate as such, but consists of small bodies with little authority and limited resources. Nevertheless, they are appreciated by all those interviewed through the country case study to play an important role in contributing to an accelerated effort to-wards prevention in France with a strong focus on both the vertical and the horizontal aspects, i.e. the involvement of local levels and civic society and an emphasis on themes as compared to a sectoral orientation only.

3 For instance the IRMA project, Interreg Programme 1998-2003, http://www.irma-programme.org



37

.

Still, there are substantial gains to be harvested from an intensified effort to streamline methods and standards and facilitate better collaboration as regards cross-border issues. Among the issues mentioned here are: the benefits from closer coordination and collaboration with regard to a climate change adapta-tion strategy for the Iberian peninsula, a strengthened joint focus on the risks of coastal erosion (raised in France), the benefits from joint standards (an issue raised by Romania) and the benefits from common methods and tools concern-ing assessments of costs and benefits (raised by France).

3.6 Existing and planned prevention and risk assessment/management concepts at Member State level

All case study Member States have procedures in place for risk assessment of country-specific risk areas at both the national, regional and local levels.

With respect to the essential task of taking stock of analysing the risks, major steps are taken. In Belgium, such an inventory was completed for the whole country, the national vulnerability assessments rely on tools such as risk map-ping, and France is in the process of charting risks and their typology at both national and department levels whereas Bulgaria also intends to include this in their programming for years.

In all Member States studied the management of the adaptation and risk plan-ning is usually the responsibility of a given Ministry, in other words a thematic or sectoral management structure. For instance, forest fires usually falls within the Ministry of Agriculture and forestry while flooding management usually belongs under the Ministry of Environment/Ecology.

Actually, prevention planning also occurs mainly as thematic initiatives, e.g. in the form of heat wave prevention plans or forest fire prevention plans.

As a result of the thematic focus, risk assessment also appears to be an isolated thematic exercise with little data sharing to other thematic areas and sectors.



38

.

However, the need for applying to a larger degree a more horizontal approach is recognised in Member States. The drivers for a horizontal approach have been identified as deriving from past disaster events (such as forest fires, flooding and heat waves), the process of defining climate change adaptation plans and from legislation (e.g. implementation of the Water Directive and now the Flooding Directive). All the Member States studied are somewhere in the proc-ess of developing a climate change adaptation plan and consequently of estab-lishing more cross-cutting forums, such as the Sustainable Development Com-mittee in France.

3.7 The conditions necessary for the implementation of prevention policies at the different administrative levels

Of importance to successful implementation of prevention policies are the strengths and resources available in a country in the form of institutional capac-ity, physical capacity, expert knowledge, research and development resources,

Lessons from climate change adaption

On climate change adaption United Kingdom and Finland are two of the EU countries that have so far progressed most, but also Norway and Canada have interesting experience. The process that Finland applied involved: • establishing an inter-ministerial task force • collaboration with experts, researchers and cores stakeholders • public hearings

The Finish strategy contains initiatives within individual sectors as well as cross-cutting themes e.g. risk assessment, EIA, warning and observation systems, research and information sharing as well as research/education.

The UK strategy has built strongly on involving stakeholders also for the financing of the exercise. The national adaption strategy defines roles and responsibilities for ministries and institutions. In the process, focus has moved from effect studies more towards risk management, and an integrated approach has been dominant.

Norway and Canada are good examples of the increasingly common under-standing that a broad range of stakeholders and institutions must be con-sulted and involved in developing a climate change adaption strategy, thus emphasising the need for comprehensive approaches which involve a more holistic understanding.

Another understanding that can be derived from the adaption process is that planning is a key issue and that building in risk management and clear re-sponsibilities in the planning at national, regional and local levels enhance the work considerably. Since local authorities have budgetary restrictions and often work with a shorter time horizon, it should be foreseen, however, that initiatives must come from the regional or national levels.



39

.

spatial data and information, financial resources, and social resources. Even if all these ingredients are present there might still be barriers to overcome in or-der to get all actors and resources into play. Such hindrances are most often of institutional nature or are the result of different mindsets and priorities among different actors.

In order for the policy implementation to be efficient, it is necessary that the division of labour, structures and responsibilities are clear. Furthermore, it is crucial to have clear structures and procedures for cross-cutting cooperation and coordination both between and within the three levels.

Vertically, this means that different sectoral as well as thematic issues and re-sponsibilities are precisely divided and well organised between the national, regional and local levels. Furthermore, there seems to be great advantages of a synchronised or common organisational set up for the involved sectors and dif-ferent administrative authorities that takes into account that they cover the same geographical areas.

Horizontally, it is equally important that there is - within each sector (horizon-tally) and between sectors at the same administrative level - a clear division of responsibilities, tasks and a common understanding of cooperation and coordi-nation.

Lastly, a single entry point at the national level will ensure efficiency, a bal-anced approach that considers different types of risk exposure and disasters, momentum and longer termed stability in regard to prevention policy and a watchdog function as regards implementation, compliance and enforcement - at the national level (policy, legislation and some financial responsibilities) and at the local level (implementation including enforcement). Given that local au-thorities have budgetary restrictions and often work with a shorter time horizon, it should be foreseen, however, that initiatives must come from the regional or national levels.

Even if some Member States are rather self-contained in terms of progress to-wards a coherent disaster prevention plan, there is still room for and need for an EU intervention. The need to have common reference for disaster planning at EU level, the added value of having access to common resources and the possi-bility to exchange best practice and experience with other Member States are seen as elements constituting a great potential.



40

.

4 Main findings from the case studies Selecting countries During the first phase of the project, the study team undertook a screening of

the EU countries to select among them four countries that would together rep-resent the variation in disaster profiles, approaches etc. (see annexed country table). The final selection of countries was decided upon during the Interim meeting with DG ENV.

Study missions to the four countries were launched during December 2007 and early January 2008, and a report for each country was written up. The reports are annexed.

In the following we will elaborate on the findings and compare these across the board.

4.1 Disaster profile of the countries The four countries have all been affected by natural and manmade disasters, and are likely to meet several future challenges. Some of the dominant potential disasters for Europe are storms, extreme temperatures and coastal zone erosion. In addition to this, there is a geographic pattern where flooding and landslides are major concerns to the north and middle of Europe and where drought, and forest fires are more predominant to the south. The picture for the four coun-tries is in summary:

Table 5.1.Dominant disaster types in the case study countries



41

.

Country Dominant disaster risk types

Sweden Storms

Flooding

Land slides


Portugal Drought

Forest fires

Flooding

Coastal zone erosion

Earthquakes

France Flooding


Forest Fires

Coastal erosion

Romania Flooding

Earthquakes

Land slides

Draught

4.2 Status of capacity Each of the studied case countries has different levels and a different combina-tion of capacities of importance in managing disaster prevention. The composi-tion of such capacities is likely to play a role in the country's ability to contain and react to the need for the implementation of preventive measures.

We have identified a number of characteristics that describe the current capac-ity and disaster prevention resources for each of the Member States studied in more detail. As inspiration for this analysis we have used the UN ISDR defini-tion on capacity (strengths and resources available) coined with the information we have collected during our visits and talks with the member States.

The combined disaster capacity of Sweden must be said to be rather solid as the country:

- A combination of all the strengths and resources available within a com-munity, society or organization that can reduce the level of risk, or the ef-fects of a disaster. (Capacity may include physical institutional, social or economic means as well as skilled personal or collective attributes such as leadership and management. Capacity may also be described as capability.) (UN/ISDR, 2004)



42

.

• has a well-established Civil Protection infrastructure with a focus on the entire PPRR circle;

• has established procedures for undertaking risk and vulnerability map-ping at national, regional and local levels as input to the spatial plan-ning and land use. Such procedures have been in place since 1998.

• has a well-functioning spatial data infrastructure - including access to high-quality digital spatial data and a general broad implementation and knowledge of GIS at all levels;

• has a large number of specialised thematic agencies and a general high level of R&D capabilities in relevant issues;

• has established a Commission on climate and vulnerability and has al-ready gone through the process of identifying incremental risks due to climate change and translating these into possible implications at vari-ous levels and producing a report with recommendations: "Sweden fac-ing climate change - threats and opportunities". This process has proven very useful in coordinating the need for prevention across the various sectors, including also private actors.

Organisational drivers for cross-cutting coordination - Sweden With the purpose of shedding light on the topics from a civil protection angle and of taking advantage of an organisation with cross-cutting relations and structures in place, the Swed-ish Rescue Services Agency was chosen as one of the main institutions for implementing the EU Seveso Directive in Sweden. For similar reasons it is considered - but still to be decided - that the Swedish Emergency Management Agency is going to be responsible for the coordination and planning of the implementation of the Flooding Directive. It is primarily to contribute with knowledge of coordination of cross-cutting initiatives. Since it is decided to merge the Swedish Rescue Services Agency and the Swedish Emer-gency Management Agency the benefits from deciding to let an organisation, normally dealing with cross-cutting issues, be in charge of implementation of thematic issues will be even more prominent.



43

.

Importance of the involvement of the local level - Swe-den In Sweden the Municipal-ity Security plan is meant to increase the flexibility of the individual munici-palities by shifting the responsibility from the state to the local level. The action plan is meant to be a process as it in-volves broad collabora-tion and assessment across the various re-sponsibilities of the mu-nicipality. The process involves (see figure) an analysis of the current situation and a risk analy-sis, setting up priorities, definition of objectives, documentation of the action plan, implementa-tion, follow-up, improv-ing, analysis….

Portugal has, at an early stage, made vulnerability assessments and predicted the effects of climate change on the country. The work pointed to possible miti-gation efforts and, to a lesser extent, also to adaption measures.

There is a rising awareness among politicians and public institutions of the need to adjust approaches to suit the needs stemming from natural and man-made potential disasters and the need for prevention, but there is still room for more integrated and overall strategies and approaches in this field. There is no single entry point in the country for disaster prevention. However, coordination and collaboration are taking place on e.g. forest fires where the civil protection authority and the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Meteorological Institute are working closely together. So, as is obviously the case for most countries, the more recent disaster events trigger a more coordinated effort also focusing on prevention whereas an overall and encompassing disaster prevention strat-egy and the related structures are not yet in place.

Several of the interviewees remarked that disaster prevention is a new field and as such skilled staff in both public and private institutions is a scarce resource. It is therefore foreseen that they is a need for comprehensive capacity building in most countries.



44

.

In terms of capacity, France is relatively well equipped as it has:

• a long tradition for civil protection, early warning and alert system and risk mapping;

• a well-organised infrastructure for CP and prevention, centralised and efficient;

• well established spatial data infrastructure and monitoring capabilities.

• law enforcement dating back to 1982 concerning disaster prevention and disaster insurance;

• valuable experiences gained from dealing with disaster in their overseas provinces;

• new horizontal initiatives established at Ministry level to tackle emerg-ing risks (socio-economic as well as the incremental risks due to cli-mate change).

For Romania, the point of departure is somehow different as the combined ca-pacities are more fragmented and lack both institutional and financial resources and experience. However, apart from many new initiatives currently being im-plemented, Romania has:

• a well-functioning civil protection system and long tradition for training and recruitment;

• well-developed communication systems to the broader public (leaflets, radio, etc) and education in primary and secondary schools concerning risks of earthquakes, fire, flooding etc. Such information is part of the curriculum in the schools;

• a well-established water management system, currently being rein-forced through a number of concrete investments in both physical con-structions, spatial data infrastructure and other prevention measures in particular through involvement in international projects;

• a well-established earthquake reinforcement building law dating back to 1977;

• begun initiation of climate adaptation planning based on a horizontal approach with the support of the Danish Ministry of Environment;

• high political awareness and priority of natural disaster related events prompting counties (prefects) and communes (mayors) to take more ac-tions to prevent in particular the recurring flooding situation.



45

.

4.3 Comprehensive disaster prevention approaches In general All countries are taking the first steps towards a disaster prevention approach

and strategy and the related action plans. An emphasis on climate change can be observed in most of the countries, most likely because the recent focus on climate change has become a driver for disaster prevention in general. This seems to have had the effect that in some of the countries there is an inclination towards focusing more on disaster prevention expected to stem from climate change than from the other areas. However the focus on disaster prevention may have also a positive effect on other areas. It is clear, however, that a stable political focus is of paramount importance to initiate comprehensive disaster prevention measures. Most of the countries pinpointed this.

The four countries studied all work towards a disaster prevention strategy in one way or the other. No country has one single entry point to disaster preven-tion, and none of the countries has yet adjusted or transformed its structures and coordination mechanisms to meet in full the needs related to disaster preven-tion, nor do they have a fully fledged, comprehensive disaster prevention ap-proach. Nevertheless, the countries have taken important steps and produced links between e.g. public institutions and implemented preventive elements that would constitute important building blocks in a comprehensive approach to and strategy for disaster prevention at the national level..

Sweden Sweden has made a cross-cutting risk assessment4 of risks related to climate change, but applying a broader focus than merely climate changes. The assess-ment was made through the involvement of a broad set of actors and stake-holders and included various forms of hearings. The assessment includes cost estimates and recommendations for the organisational set-up. The report is in public hearing until 15 January 2008.

Organisational drivers for cross cutting coordination - Sweden With the purpose of shedding light on the topics from a civil protection angle and of taking advantage of an organisation with cross-cutting relations and structures in place, the Swedish Rescue Services Agency was chosen as one of the main institutions in implementation of the EU Seveso Directive in Sweden. For similar reasons it is considered - but has yet to be decided - that the Swedish Emergency Man-agement Agency will be responsible for the coordination and planning of the implementation of the Flooding Directive. It is primarily to contribute with knowledge of coordination of cross-cutting ini-tiatives. Since it is decided to merge the Swedish Rescue Services Agency and the Swedish Emergency Man-agement Agency the benefits of deciding to let an organisation, normally dealing with cross-cutting issues, be in charge of implementation of thematic issues will be even more prominent.

4 The final report: 'Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities', The Commis-sion on Climate and Vulnerability, Swedish Government Official Report (SOU 2007:60), http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/8202/a/89524



46

.

Decentralised The Swedish approach rests on decentralised responsibilities where the municipal authorities, who are close to realities, have the responsibility for dis-aster prevention, preparedness and response. At the local level (municipal) the cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration are strong as is the integration with civil protection issues.

The conceptualisation of disaster prevention and adaption to climate change in Sweden is one of the more comprehensive approaches, which this study has come across. In Sweden, risk mapping includes demographic factors e.g. a large elderly population, globalisation, climate change, terrorism risk and other issues considered to be important challenges to society in broad terms. This conceptualisation was found both in the Ministry of Environment (responsible for climate change adaption) and in the institutions dealing with civil protec-tion.

Portugal Portugal (in 2001) began its work of assessing the risks related to climate change early on and has produced a number of extensive works, among the more important is SIAM I and latest SIAM II. The focus is on climate change, and consequently it does not include the full picture of disaster risks, but mainly those related to climate change. It is the plan to produce a climate adap-tion plan during 2008. This plan would (it seems) paint the broader picture and not only concentrate on climate change, and would take inspiration from the work of Spain and Finland. The recent experience with extensive forest fires has induced Portugal to implement various measures and set up structures relevant to this areas. The efforts have been successful so far, but the final proof has still to be seen once the next hot summer becomes a reality. The summer of 2007 was very wet, and the risk of forest fires was thus quite low. Nevertheless, the structures and initiatives seem to constitute good building blocks for similar approaches and initiatives in other sectors. Given that the forest fires were both of a manmade and of natural character , the initiatives that were launched post 2003 and post 2005 cover this broader perspective.

France France has a long tradition for prevention, dating back to the 1982 and coined with the disaster insurance set-up that requires a risk prevention plan at com-mune level to be produced and updated on a regular basis.

Following the heat waves in recent years in southern France, France has also formulated a heat wave prevention plan.

France produced a climate change adaptation strategy in 2006, drawn up under the auspices of the Committee on Sustainable Development (SD) by ONERC5. The Committee is composed of ministries representing different sectoral minis-tries, and the Committee adopted the Strategy in late 2006. The strategy is framed around three ways of categorisation: Sectors (in practical terms: Minis-tries), Themes (biodiversity, water etc.) and Geographical features (urban areas,

5 ONERC (Observatoire national sur les effects du rechauffement climatique

Broad and compre-hensive features



47

.

mountain areas etc.). The report does not include cost estimates and does not suggest the organisational set-up.

Romania Romania is in the process of drawing up adaption strategy, produced by external assistance and funded by the Danish Ministry of Environment. The next step in this process to be rolled out during the spring of 2008 will include a horizontal process of assessing risks across the various thematic areas, includ-ing an impact assessment of the different economic sectors. The work is to re-sult in an updated Climate Adaptation Strategy for the next four years.

4.4 Drivers for prevention The main driver for prevention is basically the need and wish to avoid the

negative consequences of natural and manmade disasters and the economic in-centive to invest in preventive measures to a certain level to avoid the full im-pact of disasters. The willingness to invest in preventive measures seems to be correlated very strongly to concrete and recent experiences of the costs of not having preventive measures in place on time. Through the country case studies it was stressed that the preventive area is in competition with other important areas in attracting the awareness and focus of the population as well as the politicians. Nevertheless, all the four case study countries attached great importance to prevention. The consequence of the above is that prevention must be prioritised politically and economically within the societal and economic framework of each country and their national agen-das. Part of the mechanism behind the priorities is that there is a focus on threats, which have previously occurred in the country and are expected to oc-cur again. Therefore, the threats that recently have posed the greatest challenges in the respective countries seem in all four countries to be the driver for more systematic and coordinated approaches towards risks. Hence, the most promi-nent risks can be seen as drivers for and catalysts of taking the initial steps to-wards a comprehensive approach to prevention.

Examples from the four case study countries:

In Sweden, the wind storms in 2003 triggered the implementation of a new act on protection against accidents in 2004.

In France, the heat wave in 2003 was the driver for the drawing up of a national heat prevention plan.

In Romania, the implementation of the Water Directive is the driver for the de-velopment of risk maps and systematic use of GIS to establish a solid basis for decision-making in the field of both prevention and civil protection.

In Portugal, the recent experience with forest fires, especially in 2003 and 2005, has produced a strong focus on how to decrease the extent of forest fires. Since droughts are foreseen to become an increasing problem causing water shortage, the risk of forest fires is expected to remain present in the future.

The preventive area is in competition

Mechanism behind the priorities



48

.

Seveso - Portugal

Portugal has not had any major accidents in recent years. This is partly due to the SEVESO Directive, since the political attention and thus funding and resources are often allocated to crisis areas. Even if industrial hazards had not been the top priority of the Government, the requirements of the Seveso Directive has set minimum standards for the activities that must take place in this area.

EU directives The existence of EU directives such as e.g. the Water Directive and the Seveso Directive has resulted in the implementation of new tools the at national level and their spread to other areas. For instance the use of risk management and risk mapping tools and GIS are examples of approaches and tools that have spread to other areas and contributed to creating more systematic and aggre-gated decision-making information which provides the option of setting priori-ties and ensuring cross cutting coordination between different sectors and areas of risks. In Romania, flooding is the major type of natural disaster dealt with by the Di-rectorate of Emergency Situations Management of the Ministry of Environ-ment. The implementation of the Water Directive coupled with the Flooding Directive has been the main driver for establishing the current flood and hydro-logical management system. Especially for relatively new EU member states it seems to be a driving force that there is some common paradigms and frame-works that may be used as general guidelines when building up administrative structures and keeping focus on areas with a longer time horizon.

Risk mapping In Sweden, in the field of risk mapping of landslides and floods, the SRSA has a budget of approximately 7 million SEK or 0,7 million EUR per year. This amount covers a handful of new mapping commissions each year. The general soil stability maps depict areas that might be prone to landslides. More detailed studies of the soil properties might show that these areas are not as dangerous as predicted, but the responsibility for conducting these investigations belong with the municipality or the landowner. The Swedish Geotechnical Institute and the Swedish Meteorological and Hy-drological Institute assist in the judgement of the applications that should re-ceive subsidies. Subsidies are provided on risk-based assessment by which se-vere situations are more eligible to receive subsidies. The budget is 40 million SEK, i.e. 4,3 million EUR per year. Only municipalities can apply. In France, the early warning systems and risk mapping are well developed areas that substantially assist in reducing risks. The French geo-portal provides a strong support of the efforts to inform the public, and effective early warning systems have played a key role in reducing the impacts of heat waves and forest fires despite of the fact that work still has to be done to ensure that the geo-portal easily accessible and usable. In the context of the present study, the following two issues are important:



49

.

Firstly, the process of actually making the assessment has turned out to be im-portant since it has demonstrated that a horizontal approach is indeed fruitful. The sector or area specific analysis provided the starting point of the vulner-ability assessments. These were made within the following main task groups, which, once again, were divided into sub groups:

• Technical infrastructure, spatial planning and buildings; • Agriculture/forestry/natural environment; and • Health and water resources.

The task groups were composed of experts from public administrations (local, regional and national), industry and research institutions.

Initiatives and funding The initiatives and funding of the project in Portugal came from different sources.. In the beginning of phase I of the Portuguese project financed by pri-vate funds the mandate was to make the first integrated assessment of the im-pact of climate change on the country. The work focused on a core set of socio-economic and biophysical impacts and was based on scenarios of future climate produced by climate models. Phase II of the project was initiated and financed by the Portuguese Ministry of Cities, Spatial Planning, and the Environment and continued the research started in Phase I using updated climate models, with two additional components: an Outreach and a Case-Study component. The case-study component, focusing predominantly on the Sado Estuary, sought to apply the general methodology of project SIAM (climate scenarios as an input to each sector's impact assessment) at a smaller geographic scale. The intention was to provide scenarios to decision-makers in the public sector, at a scale compatible with decision-making processes.

In France, a climate change adaptation strategy was formulated in 2006 under the auspices of the Committee on Sustainable Development (SD). The Commit-tee is composed of ministries representing different sectoral ministries, and the Committee adopted the Strategy in late 2006. The work on the strategy was chaired by ONERC who coordinated the work of the interministerial task group composed of higher officials from virtually all ministries. All members were the respective Ministries' Sustainable Development officers. The nomination of these ministerial SD focal points is a result of the Sustainable Development Strategy of France. The work on the Strategy commenced in mid 2005, and the strategy was ready late 2005. It drew heavily on the research results and climate models developed by research and knowledge institutions such as Meteo France.

Local involvement Sweden has a well-defined degree of autonomy in the municipalities and has a strong tradition for decentralisation of the local administrative level. Hence, an important part of cross-cutting coordination of preventive as well as civil pro-tection issues takes place on both the regional and local/municipality level. This decentralisation of tasks and responsibility seems to be an important part of the motivation on the part of the decentralised organisational units in promoting cross-cutting coordination. Furthermore, the legislative approach by which Sweden has moved from detailed legislative regulation to legislation based on



50

.

declaration of intent and objectives has contributed to a fully fledged local commitment and accountability. An example of this is that Sweden as of Janu-ary 2004 implemented an act on protection from accidents (3303-.778, LSO) in order to prevent and avert situations that would otherwise result in a rescue op-eration. As a result of the act, each municipality is required to draw up an ac-tion plan which includes the following steps and processes: planning, imple-menting, studying/checking and acting.

The Municipality Security plan is meant to increase the flexibility of the indi-vidual municipalities by delegating the responsibility from the state to the local level. The action plan is meant to be process-oriented as it involves broad col-laboration and assessment across the various responsibilities of the municipal-ity. The process involves an analysis of the current situation and a risk analysis, setting up priorities, defining objectives to document the action plan, imple-mentation, follow-up, improvement, analysis etc. In this way, an informed basis is established to substantiate qualitative decisions which contribute to more fo-cus on disaster prevention.

In France, in terms of vertical and horizontal coordination, it is also worth men-tioning L'Association Francaise pour la Prevention des Catastrophe Naturelles (AFPCN). The AFPCN (founded in 2001) is the successor to the French Com-mittee for Natural Disaster Reduction. It is an advisory board for the prevention of major natural hazards under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development. The board initiates local, national and international activities related to disaster reduction, and it disseminates knowledge to rele-vant stakeholders concerning lessons learnt (e.g. Hurricane Katrina), GIS for hazard and risk mapping, heads various task groups, e.g. on the economy of risks. The body plays an important role in the sense of strengthening the links between the State and civil society (public, NGOs, associations, education and research and private sector) and it acts as a network of networks for domestic and international disaster risk reduction. The AFPCN has around a dozen part-ners. In addition, about 100 individual members support and take part in the work. These come from civil society, the state and local-government employ-ees, scientists, professionals etc. It is part of the national platform for preven-tion and thus plays an active role in the European platform for disaster preven-tion. Other members are Germany and Switzerland, and other countries, includ-ing Monaco and Romania, have indicated their interest to join in as well. The AFPCN - and the platform - are small bodies with limited authority and re-sources. Nevertheless, they are appreciated by all those interviewed through the country case study to play an important role in contributing to an accelerated effort towards prevention in France with a strong focus on both the vertical and the horizontal aspects, i.e. the involvement of local levels and civic society and an emphasis on themes as compared to a pure sectoral orientation.

In Romania, the focus on importance of exercises seems to be a driver for awareness raising in general and a substantial contribution to promoting a cross-cutting approach to both civil protection and prevention. E.g. is it obliga-tory for all ministerial areas at least every third year to conduct and carry through exercises which focus on issues within their respective resorts. Fur-thermore, frequent exercises are organised, which include all vertical levels. In

Vertical vs. horizon-tal coordination



51

.

addition, bilateral trans-boundary exercises are held on trans-border issues. In some of the exercises contains an element of involvement of the public e.g. on flooding where at least once a year communication with the public is an obliga-tory part of the exercise.



52

.

Sweden Portugal France Romania

Drivers for prevention

• Main driving risk: Wind storms and flooding

• Political focus

• Institutional driv-ers

• Wind storms

• Strong resources

• Enlightened basis for decisions

• Strong research layer and tradition

• Solid bases for prioritisation

• Environmental concern and po-litical priority

• From detailed legislation to leg-islation based on declaration of in-tent and goals (From 1/1-2004)

• Shifting the re-sponsibility of prevention from the state to the local level

• The Commission on Climate and Vulnerability ap-pointed to assess regional and local impacts of global climate change on the Swedish society including costs.

• Main driving risk: Recent experi-ence with forest fires

• Risks towards coastal zones and tourism

• The plan is to develop a disas-ter adoption plan during 2008, but final decision is still pending at political level.

• Scenarios, Im-pacts and Adap-tation Measures - SIAM Project phase II, contin-ued the research started in phase I using updated climate models, with two addi-tional compo-nents: an Out-reach and a Case-Study com-ponent.

• Main driving risk: Heat waves

• Participation in national platform on UNISDR

• Insurance

• Climate change adaption strategy of 2006

• Committee on Sustainable De-velopment (SD). The Committee is composed of min-istries represent-ing different sec-toral ministries

• Main driving risk: Flooding

• Implementation of water and flood-ing directives

• New member state

• Obligatory exer-cises within all ministerial areas at least every 3rd year.

• Exercises at all levels and bilat-eral trans-border exercises

• Involvement of the public in flooding is organ-ised so that once a year exercises are held.

• National coordi-native cross-cutting committee on ministerial level with the par-ticipation of all ministries, e.g. dealing with land development and land use.

• Yearly report to prime minister from the National Committee on Emergency Situa-tions.

4.5 Special features In the four countries visited, some specific initiatives could be observed, They were special measures that grew out of a concrete experience and/or tradition. The variation in these special features also serves to illustrate how the countries are all examples of different approaches and realities.

There is a general understanding that local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster prevention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of

Local level involve-ment



53

.

their area and have local responsibilities. In two of the countries this was clearly implemented:

In Portugal, the climate change scenarios are translated from global through national level into municipal level through the currently ongoing exercise of SIAM-Sintra. This study is conducted in the municipality of Sintra to study the impact of climate change in a concrete municipality and re-commend adaption and mitigation measures.6 This would constitute an important input to a more comprehensive approach.

Another example of the same is Sweden's way of including sectors and local level authorities in reflecting on the consequences of the national climate change scenarios and in providing feedback to the production of the Swedish climate adaption report, which has a disaster prevention outlook, even if this is not the central focus.

In Portugal, the extension and severity of forest fires have motivated both citi-zen groups as well as the private sector to demonstrate social responsibility. In the aftermath of the forest fires and as their contribution to prevention, the pri-vate sector actors have donated tools and equipment to various actors, and citi-zens groups have arranged awareness happenings to attract public attention to the obligations on a citizen in disaster prevention. This initiative is called the ECHO Movement.

Insurance The French special feature is one of insurance. France has a tradition for insurance arrangements in relation to disasters. The law of 1982 instituted a legal system for natural disaster compensation that is based on the principle that the federal government is responsible for protecting the welfare of its citizens. The parties to this system are the State, the insurance sector and the police owners. A compulsory payment of 12 % is charged on all insurance policies in the order of 12 %. Recently, it was decided that 8 % of the 12 % should be de-voted to a specific pool, destined for preventive actions and studies. The State reinsures and guarantees the payments, and the insurance companies manage the system.

In Romania, considerations of an insurance coverage to be introduced with a solidarity angle are ongoing. Romania faces considerable challenges both in coping with increasing disaster risks and in implementing adequate organisa-tional, administrative, technical and economic issues in order to reduce the overall risk by implementing prevention measures.

New Member States with weaker administrative structures and possibly a less politically stable focus on disaster prevention seem to benefit from existing EU directives and similar instruments, e.g. the implementation of the Water Direc-tive and now the Flooding Directive has been main drivers for establishing the current flood and hydrological management system. Especially for relatively new EU member states it seems to be a driving force that there is some com-mon paradigms and frameworks that can be used as general guidelines when 6 See interview with Professor Santos of Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa

Role of Private en-terprises and citizens

Building up struc-tures through com-pulsory and stan-dardised arrange-ments



54

.

building up administrative structures and keeping focus on areas with longer time horizon.

In Sweden, the Seveso Directive and (supposedly) the Flooding directive are the responsibility of Swedish Rescue Service Agency. The approach is thus to strengthen and develop the organisational and administrative context of this organisation and build on existing structures. In this way, Sweden links up the civil protection experience and approach with the longer term prevention per-spective that has traditionally been more outspoken in the sector ministries.

4.6 Challenges, weaknesses and threats Some of the interviewees classify disaster prevention related to the challenges arising from natural - e.g. global warming - and manmade disasters - e.g. terror-ism - as a new area. Others and mainly those engaged with civil protection matters do rather see the challenges as incremental risks due to the fact that they have long experience in dealing with different kinds of disasters - mainly based on an all-hazard approach.

What seems to be the case is rather that cross-cutting disaster prevention is a new area and focus within this more comprehensive approach is not yet fully developed, established or mainstreamed. A new mindset is needed, and it was stressed that the necessary mentality change takes time.

None of the countries seemed to have such a fully fledged, single horizontal mechanism that can coordinate between CP actors and other sector actors, such as environment/sustainable development, energy, transport etc.

The case study countries are at different stages of the development of a com-prehensive approach and have different administrative and operational struc-tures to take into account when designing their version of a comprehensive ap-proach. Each country's political and economical capabilities together with na-tional resources and priorities are resulting in different challenges.

Decision information Concerning decision information in Romania there is a lack of fundamental digital mapping resources, e.g. high resolution land maps, including land use and digital terrain models as the basis for deriving good quality risk and vulner-ability mapping also on the local scale.

In Romania, the intent is to have a fully operational GIS system incorporating both hydrologic data with land use information and risk mapping. However, the GIS expertise is not fully developed, neither at the water basin management level nor at the county level.

In Portugal, no cost estimates of inaction versus adaption/prevention have been made. This makes it difficult to evaluate the cost efficiency of measures put in place. It would be useful to assess the impact of the measures put in place as an input to future prioritisation.



55

.

Financial resources In Portugal, there is in general a strong focus on the fact that scarce financial resources makes it crucial to do the right prioritisation. E.g. there is lack of suf-ficient and well-trained human resources. So is the case with Romania where there is lack of competence, employees and expertise, e.g. in the insurance sec-tor.

In general lack of resources, including financial resources, is a barrier to devel-opment and progress in the field of prevention both in the area of research and development as well in the area of real capacity building. E.g. in Romania there is lack of funding for research and studies in e.g. flooding. In order to activate all relevant resources in society important steps have yet to be taken in defining the role of the private sector in climate adaption. E.g. in Portugal this need was articulated due to the fact that the role of the private sector is still unclear. It will be useful and necessary jointly to formulate their role.

New competences Since the incremental risks arising from climate changes generate new tasks or call for solutions of existing tasks in a different perspective there seems to some extent to be a need for new competences both within sector-specific areas as well as competencies and skills in more cross-cutting and comprehensive disci-plines. In all countries there is lack of sufficient and well-trained human re-sources to varying degrees.

Negative effects At the national levels as well as at the EU level, it is a challenge to avoid barriers arising from initiatives and legislation within sector-specific areas that has unintended negative effects on improvements of prevention and civil pro-tection. An example is the EU legislation which does not allow a Member State to provide financial support to the relocation of Seveso-regulated companies. The challenge seems to be to develop a "proof mechanism" that considers whether initiatives and regulations in separate sectors and in thematic areas have a negative effect on the overall preventive approach or strategy.

Vertical involvement There seems to be strong incentives to involve all vertical levels. In Portugal, local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster prevention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of their area and have local responsi-bilities. Similar considerations are relevant for France where the top-down or hierarchical approach to civil protection and prevention might have the draw-back that less responsibility is left at the local level (communes).

The competition about focus on the political agenda involves the potential risk that problems that have not yet shown their full potential or required long-term initiatives do not receive the appropriate attention or is not given the required high priority. In Romania seems to lack focus on droughts, because it is less concrete than flooding even though droughts may potentially be as big a threat to society.

In France, the well-established disaster insurance scheme might curb the incen-tive to implement appropriate prevention measures because the built- in eco-nomic incentives are not sufficient to stimulate an increased prevention effort.



56

.


Weaknesses

• No single hori-zontal mecha-nism to coordi-nate between CP actors and other sector actors (en-viron-ment/sustainable development, en-ergy, transport etc.).

• Disaster preven-tion is a new area and focus is not yet main-streamed.

• A new mindset is needed and a mentality change takes time.

• EU legislation does not allow a member state to provide financial support to the re-location of Seveso-regulated companies.

• Lack of sufficient and well-trained human resources.

• Insufficient fund-ing of the area.

• No cost estimates on inaction ver-sus adap-tion/prevention available.

• It would be useful to assess the im-pact of the meas-ures put in place as an input to fu-ture prioritisation.

• The role of the private sector in climate adaption is unclear. It would be useful and necessary jointly to formu-late its role.

• The top-down or hierarchical ap-proach to civil protection and prevention might have the draw-back that less re-sponsibility is left at the local level (communes)

• The well-established disas-ter insurance scheme might curb the incentive to implement ap-propriate preven-tion measures.

• The hierarchical approach to civil protection and prevention might be a drawback.

• Thematic links between CP and prevention are weak due to the fact that the pre-fect is only one to draw different strands together.

• Lack of focus on droughts because it is less concrete than flooding.

• Lack of funding for research and studies in e.g. flooding.

• Lack of compe-tence, employees and expertise in the insurance sector.

• About 9 % of 8-9 million house-holds are insured.

In Sweden, the population's expectations of a high level of public service seem to be prominent also in other areas than prevention and civil protection. Issues such as an ageing population, polarisation in society are prioritised and on the agenda together with global warming. The other topics will put the preventive area under pressure in the competition about resources.

In Sweden, the responsibility for adapting to a changed climate is shared be-tween individuals, municipalities and the state. In the report "Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities" it is proposed that the county ad-ministrative boards should be given a driving role, and the task of coordinating the climate adaptation work should be located in the respective counties. This work is done by about approximately 1/3 of the staff work at the counties (Län). Here, the challenge seems to be how to coordinate between the counties in an efficient way and to avoid that lack of coordination results in less efficient prevention.

In Portugal, the main challenge appears to be that the ongoing focus on build-ing up a stronger cross-cutting coordination and more comprehensive approach will not move forward because of lack of resources, including financial re-sources. If policy focus is not stable and policy steps, instruments and measures



57

.

are not implemented and followed up, momentum will be lost, and the focus on disaster prevention weakened.

In France, the challenge seems to be finding a way of using the well-established structure as basis for coping with new and incremental threats. This includes how to plan for and prepare for an increasing number of risks (socio-economic behaviour as well as the incremental risk of climate change), in par-ticular flooding, coastal erosion, urban planning. Another issue is how to acti-vate or involve broader parts of society, e.g. by raising public awareness, en-hancing training and education to engage the population, businesses and ad-ministration actively in prevention issues.

In Romania, where especially flooding have trans boundary aspects, the ex-change of information and knowledge on related issues is of crucial impor-tance. At the moment there is apparently lack of information in relation to po-tential risks and conditions relating to cross-border issues.


Threats/-challenges

• The population's expectations of a high level of pub-lic service also with in other areas will put the pre-ventive area un-der pressure.

• The responsibility for adapting to a changed climate is shared between individuals, mu-nicipalities and the state. We pro-pose that the county administra-tive boards be given a driving role and the task of coordinating the climate adap-tation work within their respective counties.

• If policy focus is not stable and policy steps, in-struments and measures are not implemented and followed up, mo-mentum will be lost, and the focus on disaster pre-vention weak-ened.

• To plan for and prepare for an in-creasing number of risks (socio-economic behav-iour as well as the incremental risk of climate change), in particular: flooding, coastal erosion, urban planning.

• Public awareness, training and edu-cation to engage the broader popu-lation, businesses and administration in actively preven-tion issues.

• Lack of informa-tion relation to po-tential risks and conditions relating to trans-border is-sues.

• Increased risk of forest fires caused by droughts.

4.7 EU added value action The following points on the added value of an eventual EU intervention have been collected based on the interviews conducted in the four Member States.



58

.

EU Added value Description Member States

Exchange of best practice in the field of disaster prevention

Mechanisms to improve the exchange of best practice in disaster pre-vention are perceived as an important role for the Community. This is to include soft as well as hard measures, e.g. building codes for physical constructions, institutional set up, concepts, methodologies, etc.

The European network of National Platforms for disaster reduction (under the UN/ISDR framework) was mentioned as a good example and could serve as a pre-courser mechanism to be implemented at EU level including all MS.

All four case study coun-tries

Projects address-ing common European prob-lems, e.g. coastal erosion

Concrete projects at European level to address common Pan-European problems are perceived to be a very good way of setting up networks of collaboration and of addressing problems in order to reach a common understanding and take action towards prevention. A good example is coastal erosion, a problem which is reinforced due to increasing water levels.


Access to com-mon resources, approaches, guidelines

Another example of a possible common issue which with advantage could be tackled at European level is the development of common methodologies and approaches which could result in guidelines for specific issues.

Examples could be a common approach to dealing with cost of inac-tion and cost of prevention; a field in which there are many methodo-logical issues to address.

Another example is standards or common practices for risk mapping.

The lack of common methodologies, in particular with regard to eco-nomic assessments and common methods for analyses and presenta-tion is a barrier to an effective and truly constructive dialogue between two or more individual Member States on possible cross-border is-sues and to sharing experience and knowledge.

Access to common resources could also be in the form of more wide-spread sharing of research and development results. For instance, on the test results of fire resistant equipment. Another example is sharing of experts by establishing a database of thematic experts available for consultation on specific problems.

The key words in identifying common issues are synergy and econo-mies of scale.


Access to Spatial data

Although most Member States have a good spatial data infrastructure, the need to have European-wide monitoring capacities is well recog-nised. Initiatives such as GMES supported by Inspire for standardisa-tion of data collection were mentioned as good examples of EU com-mon resources. Romania in particular lags behind in having access to adequate digital data, e.g. digital elevation model and data at the sufficient resolution.

All four case study coun-tries - par-ticularly SW, RO

Research and Development

Investments in R&D are very much seen as preventive, non-structural measures where EU could play a leading role. For example research into new crop types or tree species with improved fire resistance.

All four case study coun-tries - par-ticularly FR, RO

Education and information

Initiatives addressing public awareness of prevention, including cli-mate adaptation, allowing people to take wise decisions.

RO

A 'door' to preven-tion, but no new

There is no single entry point in the European Commission as regards prevention. Such a "single entry door" should be horizontal in the

FR, RO



59

.

EU Added value Description Member States

institution sense of representing (or guiding) all sectors/themes of relevance to prevention.

It was also stressed that there is no need for any new EU institu-tions to deal with disaster prevention.

Common ambi-tions

EU should stimulate and ensure that Member States define national norms for protecting the populations in terms of minimum acceptance levels for risk and protection by means of a set of indicators or in-dexes.

RO

EU evaluation EU should do a proof of their policies and instruments, both existing and future ones, to ensure that their instruments do not have adverse effects on disaster prevention.

PO

EU Catalyst EU should take on itself to be catalyst of focus (watchdog) to support a stable political focus on disaster prevention. This could be done through constantly keeping the focus through applying various means and mechanisms. This would include striking a balance between the types of potential disasters, thus avoiding that some types are more on the agenda than others with equal or even more detrimental con-sequences.

PO

Capacity building EU should play a role in capacity building e.g. regarding earthquakes or disaster prevention in general.

PO

EU added value - Member state statements

The statements listed above indicate that are at least three EU added value di-mensions. One relates to a mechanism to facilitate exchange of best practice and a forum where experts can meet and exchange ideas and experience. A sec-ond dimension relates to access to common resources. The third dimension re-lates to a common body which can represent both the interests of the prevention community and which can define a common mission with respect to broad horizontal issues, such as common norms for minimum acceptance levels for risk, common research agenda, etc.

EU added value Elements

Although Member States called for a common prevention 'door', it was at the same time stressed that there is no need to build additional institutions. A pre-vention body will have to be embedded into something existing. Any EU initia-tives should also respect the subsidiarity principle, and it was stressed that EU should only take a role where it makes sense and adds value. Member States want as little EU intervention as possible, on the other hand, Member States have identified a number of areas of added value and synergy.



60

.

For the EC it will be important to build on the current political momentum and at the same time ensure that there is a stable political focus on any initiative and that a broad commitment with clear and positive benefit elements is present.



61

.

5 Derived system for disaster prevention Based on the experience gained through the country case studies, the study team has formulated the following generic list of necessary steps and compo-nents. The table presents the findings of the study team on the necessary condi-tions and essential features for a comprehensive disaster prevention approach. The conditions and features are necessary at all administrative levels.

Steps Main Feature

Actors and stakeholders

Identify key national actors and stakeholders in the country, including all administrative levels of public sector, researchers, private sector and citizens and their organisations etc. Identify bilateral and international actors of relevance.

Risk mapping Base on the above step map risks and translate them into scenarios with variations relevant to relevant sectors at na-tional, regional/county and municipal/local levels.

Scenarios Based on global models the country produce scenarios.

Strategy Develop national, regional and local strategies defining goals (security objectives and performance objectives) and ways to go (push/pull, which themes to include, time horizon, main-streaming or centralised model, overall organisational model, legislation mechanisms, central funding and financial mecha-nisms, information and communication, etc.).

Action plan Take steps to accomplish strategic goals and indicators and identify relevant stakeholders/actors.

Distribution of responsibilities

Who does what - define precise responsibilities for disaster prevention according to adequacy and efficiency.

Resources and capacity alloca-tion

Persons, materials, funding mechanisms etc.

Implementation Horizontal coordination of involved actors, competencies, who does what.

Systematic fol-low-up/feedback

How to measure progress systematically and bring lessons learnt back into the circuit.

Each of the nine steps are analysed in more detail below, and findings as well as EU potential added value are outlined.



62

.

5.1 Actors and stakeholders Findings Since the challenges described in the above can be characterised as being of a

cross- cutting and rather diversified in nature, it is important to understand that efficient solutions call for involvement of a broad spectre of competences, ac-tors, stakeholders and decision-makers. Thus, it is important at an early stage to identify relevant actors and to be aware of and take into account that different perspectives are involved in the whole risk management process.

The diagram below illustrates one of the important challenges of and one of the criteria for future success in regard to an intensified effort on disaster preven-tion. The diagram illustrates a possible need for strengthening the link between actors from civil protection, on the one hand, and the sectoral issues and actors on the other hand (exemplified here by environmental management).

In Member States the left hand side (civil protection) would typically be an-chored, with regard to the central level, in the Ministry of the Interior or, in some cases, in Prime Minister's Office or in Ministry of Defence. Policies and plans are developed that, in a fairly operational manner, tackle the needs for prevention - in terms of mitigation only - and preparedness (and re-sponse/restoration). Civil Protection plans and policies, and not least tools, are of a fairly generic nature, albeit also specific to the types of disasters they ad-dress.

The thematic or sectoral ministries, on the other hand, elaborate more strategic long termed plans and policies that also focus on mitigation, but to a wider ex-tent on adaptation, and if possible, prevention per se. They tend to do this on a stronger case-by-case basis, and some indications from interviewees imply that it can be difficult to maintain momentum and ensure the financial resources as time elapses and the event that provoked the action gradually becomes history.

Somehow, it may be argued that there are links already. Civil protection in the figure will typically consider the PPRR (prevention, preparedness, response, and remediation) cycle whereas the sector/theme (exemplified here by envi-ronmental management) is seen to relate more to prevention in a broader per-spective, i.e. with a stronger focus on adaptation as well. Still, mitigation is an issue that is dealt with in all areas.

All of the studied countries have in various forms and to various degrees cross-cutting committees at the national level, some also at the regional and local (municipality) levels. There is variation from country to country of the extent of



63

.

which these horizontal groups deal with real prevention or solely with crisis management related issues.

The EUR-OPA (2005)7 study observed a tendency for interviewees to define "the frame of reference and reflection is almost systematically and strictly lim-ited to their assigned competences, with no sign of any desire to consider the possible implications outside their respective spheres of competence". In this field, the study however suggest some movements towards a more recognised need for more horizontal coordination and collaboration.

Involve all vertical levels There seem to be strong incentives to involve all vertical levels. In e.g. Portugal it was stressed that the local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster prevention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of their area and have local responsibilities. Similar considerations are relevant for France where the top-down or hierarchical approach to civil protection and prevention might have a drawback as less responsibility is left at the local level (com-munes). There is a general understanding that local authorities must be strongly engaged in disaster prevention and climate adaption as they are close to the realities of their area and have local responsibilities. In two of the countries this was clearly implemented:

In Portugal, the climate change scenarios are being translated from global through national level into municipal level through a currently ongoing exer-cise. The study in question is conducted in the municipality of Sintra to study the impact of climate change in a concrete municipality and recommend adap-tion and mitigation measures.8 This would constitute an important input to a more comprehensive approach.

Another example of the same is Sweden's way of including sectors and local level authorities in reflecting on the consequences of the national climate change scenarios and in providing feedback to the production of the Swedish climate adaption report, which has a disaster prevention outlook, even if this is not the central focus.

EU added value As indicated above, most of the case study countries are already aware of the importance of involving the local level. This involvement could be encouraged further by stimulating the exchange of best practice in this field between Mem-ber States.

Private sector In none of the countries the role of the private sector has been fully defined. There are examples of initiatives where private companies take an active part in financing part of the preparedness on voluntary bases. For instance in Portugal, the extension and severity of forest fires have motivated both citizen groups as 7 Comparative Study on the Regulations Concerning Major Risk Management, In the 25 Mem-ber States of the Council of Europe's EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement - Final Report - AP/CAT (2003) 39 8 See interview with Professor Santos of Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa



64

.

well as the private sector to demonstrate social responsibility. In the aftermath of the forest fires, private sector actors have as their contribution to prevention donated tools and equipment to various actors. This initiative is called the ECHO Movement.

EU added value There seems to be a lack of a more clear an explicit clarification of the role of the private sector; hence the role of the private sector in climate adaption is un-clear. Since the private sector is involved in building and operating a larger and larger part of the critical national infrastructure that earlier was the responsibil-ity of the public sector, there is an increasing need to strengthen the relations between the public and private sector when it comes to prevention, mitigation, preparedness and protection. It will be useful and necessary jointly to formulate the role of the private sector. Furthermore, in some cases, there appears to be a need for a common EU voice to argue with the industry about common stan-dards e.g. for different kinds of equipment, in the cases where the individual Member State is not itself a strong enough party.

Insurance (FR) The French special feature is one of insurance. France has a tradition for insurance arrangements in relation to disasters. The law of 1982 instituted a legal system for natural disaster compensation that is based on the principle that the federal government is responsible for protecting the welfare of its citizens. The participants of this system are the State, the insurance sector and the police owners. A compulsory payment of 12 % is charged on all insurance policies. Recently, it was decided that 8 % of the 12% should be devoted to a specific pool destined for preventive actions and studies. The State reinsures and guar-antees the payments, and the insurance companies manage the system.

In Romania, considerations of an insurance coverage to be introduced with a solidarity angle, are ongoing. Romania faces considerable challenges both in coping with increasing disaster risks and in implementing adequate organisa-tional, administrative, technical and economic issues in order to reduce the overall risk by implementing prevention measures.

EU added value It may be questioned whether the existence of insurances puts a limit to efforts to stimulate preventive measures. As damages payments are counted on by the individual citizens, the citizen's incentive to engage in preventive actions is lim-ited. The question is then what role the insurance companies are going to play. There seems to be a common interest in research in this field to clarify the ad-vantages and the drawbacks of the different solutions to insurances at the na-tional level.

Citizens From the study we can conclude that there is a tendency towards a gradual loss of a prevention culture at the more individual level. Somehow, prevention has become more viewed as a societal responsibility at the expense of individual precautions. One example is that people build houses in areas known as risk areas in terms of flooding, and at the same time they count on national authori-ties to compensate them if their properties are threatened or damaged by flood-ing, as seems to be the case in Romania. This actually suggests an important dilemma between, on the one hand, providing a strong sense of security in soci-



65

.

ety and, on the other hand, inciting citizens, industries and other actors to take appropriate preventive measures proactively.

EU added value Further mobilising citizens and the private sector as part of a social responsibility and defining roles and responsibilities (in broad terms) could contribute positively towards disaster prevention. Initiatives addressing public awareness of prevention including climate adaptation, allowing people to take wise decisions should be a part of the framework. One example of such an ini-tiative is a large-scale and comprehensive awareness raising campaign which was launched to prevent manmade forest fires in Portugal. The campaign seems to have been successful.

There appears to be a need for involvement of all relevant categories and levels of actors - horizontal and vertical ones - and a need for further stimulation of efficient communication, coordination and cooperation between them. The ex-change of best practice and development of new tools seem to of common in-terest to the Member States.

Furthermore, in general, there is apparently a growing need to raise public awareness and enhance training and education to engage the broader popula-tion, businesses and administration actively in prevention issues.

5.2 Scenarios Findings Risk and vulnerability analysis including risk mapping is an important first step

in the comprehensive approach to the efficient prevention and civil protection and the planning process in relation to both. The next step is the development of scenarios. The different actors generate specific scenarios based on what is most relevant to them and then assess the risks and vulnerabilities associated with each scenario. This approach has the option that risks can be assessed ac-cording to likelihood and consequences while vulnerabilities can be assessed according to existing capacities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the type of incident or disasters in the scenario. The development of relevant and well-documented scenarios is crucial since they are the reference for the further steps in prioritisation and planning efforts.

Hence, strong research layer and tradition and the willingness to invest funds and resources are important drivers for the development of scenarios and there-fore for promoting prevention. E.g. the Swedish exposition "Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities, SOU 2007:60", the Portuguese ex-position "Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project" have been important drivers and common reference for the efforts done in the field of prevention. A second phase of the project sought to apply the general methodology of project SIAM (climate scenarios as an input to each sector's impact assessment) at a smaller geographic scale. The intention was to provide scenarios to decision-makers in the public sector, at a scale compatible with their specific decision-making processes. In Romania, the lack of a national vulnerability assessments and the lack of a mapping of resources seem to influence the development and use of scenarios negatively



66

.

since the underlying information is not available in an appropriate form. In France, the climate change adaptation strategy of 2006 contributed to creating a national common outset and overall goals for the efforts on preventive initia-tives.

In the case study, the countries' scenarios are in general integrated into the ap-proach to prevention even though particularly Romania seems to suffer from lack of fundamental data to establish appropriate and updated scenarios.

EU added value Cross-cutting supra national vulnerability assessments and development of scenarios covering the all Member States, including disasters with potential cross-border impact. These scenarios should be made in a way that makes it possible to derive scaled-down versions for each Member State. Afterwards, the national scenarios should be able to be scaled dawn to regional and local levels and translated into measures relevant to each specific sector.

5.3 Risk mapping Findings Risk mapping plays a key role in planning and preparing for different scenarios

and thereby reducing the impacts of hazards. Furthermore, risk mapping pro-vides strongly supports the efforts to prioritise,; inform the public and establish effective early warning systems.

All case study Member States have in place procedures for risk assessment and mapping for country-specific risk areas at both national, regional and local lev-els.

In regard to the essential task of taking stock of analysing the risks, major steps are taken. In Belgium, such an inventory has been completed for the whole country, the national vulnerability assessments rely on tools such as risk map-ping, and France is in the process of charting risks and their typology at both national and department levels whereas Romania will also includes this in their programming for years. Concerning decision information in Romania there is lack of fundamental digital mapping resources, e.g. high resolution land maps, including land use and digital terrain models as the basis from which to derive good quality risk and vulnerability mapping also at the local scale.

The combined disaster capacity of Sweden concerning decision information including risk mapping must be said to be rather solid. For instance, Sweden has established procedures for undertaking risk and vulnerability mapping at national, regional and local levels as input to spatial planning and land use. In Portugal, risk mapping is done in relation to the major potential disasters, i.e. forest fires, flooding and industrial hazards.

Portugal has, at an early stage, prepared vulnerability assessments and pre-dicted the effects of climate change on the country. The work has pointed to possible mitigation efforts and, to a lesser extent, also to adaption measures. France has well-established spatial data infrastructure and monitoring capaci-ties and has a long tradition for risk mapping.



67

.

In Romania, the intent is to have a fully operational GIS system incorporating both hydrologic data, land use information and risk mapping. However, the GIS expertise is not fully developed neither at the water basin management level nor at the county level.

Sweden has a well-functioning spatial data infrastructure - including access to high quality digital spatial data and a general broad implementation and knowl-edge of GIS at all levels.

In all of the case studies Member States recognise risk mapping as a fundamen-tal tool for effective prioritisation and planning in relation to efforts on preven-tion and civil protection. Some are already experienced while some are at an earlier stage but plan to take further initiatives.

EU added value Although most Member States have a good spatial data infrastructure, the need to have European wide monitoring capacities is well recognised. Initiatives such as GMES supported by Inspire for standardisation of data collection were mentioned as good examples of EU common resources. Romania in particular lags behind in terms of having access to adequate digital data, e.g. a digital ele-vation model and data with the sufficient resolution.

There seems to be major differences in budgets for risk mapping in the studied countries. Thus, in countries with scarce resources for this area, there is a need for supplementary funding and exchange of expertise to enhance further diffu-sion of risk mapping.

5.4 Strategy Findings So far, none of the four study countries have a fully fledged disaster prevention

strategy, but all take important steps in that direction. However the need for applying to a larger degree a more horizontal approach is recognised in the Member States. The drivers for a horizontal approach have been identified as deriving from past disaster events (such as forest fires, flooding and heat waves), the process of defining climate change adaptation plans and from legis-lation (e.g. implementing of the water directive and now the flooding directive). All the Member States studied are somewhere in the process of developing a climate change adaptation plan and consequently of establishing more cross-cutting forums, such as the Sustainable Development Committee in France.

Sweden has produced the comprehensive report "Sweden facing climate change" which focuses mainly on climate change adaption but also on disaster prevention. It makes recommendations for an organisational set-up and consti-tutes an important platform for decision-making.

Portugal has produced risk scenarios and has implemented a set of prevention measures, especially in the area related to the risk of forest fires. An adaption strategy is forthcoming.

At the national level, a single entry point would provide efficiency; a balanced approach that considers different types of risk exposure and disasters; momen-tum and longer termed stability in regard to prevention policy; and a watchdog function as regards implementation, compliance and enforcement - at the na-



68

.

tional (policy, legislation and some financial responsibilities) and the local (im-plementation including enforcement) levels.

EU added value EU could provide a single EU door to prevention covering all the horizontal aspects relating to it.

The EU could facilitate better information and experience sharing among Member States also with a view to identifying and building up best practice approaches.

The EU could assist in developing joint EU standards and methods for example for cost-benefit assessments (not indicated though by all countries) to facilitate better joint best practice developments and joint efforts on cross-border disas-ters.

Legislation As mentioned earlier, legal requirements are seen as an important driver. Thus, the EU obligations on Member States in regard to the Seveso Directive and in regard to flooding have clearly spurred prevention efforts in Member States. Similarly, the international obligation on countries to prepare strategies and na-tional adaptation plans for climate change has accelerated developments in this field.

The conceptualisation and definitions of prevention policies thus develop very much along with these more or less external drivers: the recognised need for action after major disasters and the adoption of initiatives at the EU level. Thus, prevention policies reflect the gradual building up of experience and lessons learnt from the different sectoral and thematic initiatives and build on also the expertise and experience from the civil protection area .

At all national levels as well as at EU level, it is a challenge to avoid barriers arising from initiatives and legislation within sector-specific areas that have unintended negative effects on further improvements in the prevention and civil protection areas. The existence of EU legislation which does not allow a Mem-ber State to provide financial support to the relocation of Seveso-regulated companies is an example of this. At the EU level, the challenge seems to be to develop a "proof mechanism" that considers whether EU initiatives and regula-tion in separate sectors and in thematic areas may have a negative effect on an overall prevention approach or strategy.

5.5 Action plan Findings As observed earlier, no fully fledged action plans for disaster prevention are yet

in place in the countries studied. Nevertheless, a number of important initiatives and experience from earlier disasters have produced initiatives and measures.

In all Member States studied, the management of the adaptation and risk plan-ning is usually the responsibility of a given Ministry, in other words a thematic or sectoral management structure. For instance, forest fires usually fall under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry while flooding management usually



69

.

belongs to the Ministry of Environment/Ecology. Prevention planning also oc-curs mainly as thematic initiatives, e.g. heat wave prevention plans or forest fire prevention plans. As a result of the thematic focus, risk assessment also appears to be an isolated thematic exercise with little data sharing with other thematic areas and sectors.

EU added value The need for facilitating the production of action plans could be supported by the EU through initiatives that support benchmarking, exchange of best prac-tices and keep political focus on the area. Initiatives such as the Green Paper on Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action and the regional meetings held was found to be useful mechanisms by interviewees.

5.6 Implementation Findings Of importance to successful implementation of prevention policies are the

strengths and resources available in a country in the form of institutional capac-ity, physical capacity, expert knowledge, research and development resources, spatial data and information, financial resources, and social resources. Even though all these ingredients are present, there might still be barriers to over-come in order to get all actors and resources into play. Such hindrances are most often of institutional nature as a result of different mindsets and priorities among different actors.

EU added value Even if some Member States, such as France and Sweden, are rather self-contained in terms of progress towards a coherent disaster prevention plan, there is a need for a common reference for disaster planning at the EU level, and the potential added value of gaining access to common resources and the possibility of exchanging best practice and experience with other Member States are seen as a great potential.

EU policies, such as the Seveso Directive, Water Directive and now the Flood-ing Directives together with cross-border projects usually funded under the In-terreg Programme have been important drivers not only towards an integrated approach but also towards lifting the standards in general concerning a specific issue. A further focus on cross-border issues and a coherent strategy focusing on and integrating prevention strategies into for instance Interreg-funded pro-jects is likely to reinforce both implementation and capacity building in Mem-ber States.

5.7 Systematic follow-up Findings There are indications in Member States that prevention tend to be most in focus

immediately after an experienced disaster - and there are reservations that it can be/is difficult to maintain political momentum and budgetary allocations for the development, and not least, the implementation of a long-termed more compre-hensive prevention policy.

So far, prevention policies appear to be have been very much framed and adopted on a one-cause-at-a-time basis provoked through recent events with



70

.

(economic) damage or loss of lives. Examples of such interventions are the ac-tions taken to prevent forest fires in Portugal and the heat wave plans developed in France.

Also, legal requirements are seen as an important driver for ensuring a system-atic follow-up and for keeping focus.

EU added value The EU could ensure systematic follow-up to ensure value for money and use of best practice. Monitoring and systematic evaluation of disaster prevention measures as to effect and cost-effectiveness will be key instruments in achiev-ing worthwhile disaster prevention.

The EU should take on itself to be catalyst of focus (watchdog) to support a stable political focus on disaster prevention. This could be done through con-stantly keeping the focus through applying various means and mechanisms This would include striking a balance between the types of potential disasters, thus avoiding that some types are more on the agenda than others with equal of even more detrimental consequences.

Since one of the main drivers for prevention is political focus, it seems obvious that the EU should stimulate the political focus in the Member States. One way of doing this could be to encourage Member States to submit yearly reports which would contribute towards exchanging best practice and ensuring that ob-jectives are met due to the fact that reports from operational and administrative levels are required by the political level to feed into political discussions and decision-making. Similar reports are already submitted on a yearly basis in sev-eral Member States, e.g. Romania, Denmark and Sweden.

5.8 Distribution of responsibilities Findings While a country like France has a highly centralised structure, others such as

Portugal and Sweden are much more decentralised with responsibilities being de-concentrated to regional and local levels. It appears that in Sweden and Por-tugal the decentralised organisation is seen as a strategic approach to disaster prevention. The understanding here is that knowledge of local conditions and the cross-sectoral approach at the local level are strengths. This must be sup-plemented by national initiatives. Thus, in the two countries, the built-in com-prehensive and horizontal approach at the local level to a number of issues, in-cluding civil protection and disaster prevention, in combination with the local knowledge and understanding is integrated in the work on developing an ap-proach to disaster prevention. Furthermore, it seems that the strategic choices of the two last-mentioned countries point towards a comprehensive and horizontal approach to disaster prevention, either through a thematic approach or as a genuine national comprehensive approach.

EU added value This is mainly a domain where national action must be taken. However, the EU could facilitate exchange of best practice as needed.



71

.

5.9 Resources and capacity allocation Findings Since the incremental risks arising from climate changes generate new tasks or

call for solutions of existing tasks in a different perspective, there is obviously a need for new competences in sector-specific areas and in more cross-cutting and comprehensive disciplines. In all countries and to varying degrees, there is lack of well-trained human resources.

In Portugal, there is in general a strong focus on the fact that scarce financial resources make it crucial to set priorities correctly. This is also the case with Romania where both lack of expertise and financial resources are a main obsta-cle for ambitious planning. By way of example, flood prevention still suffers from decades of lack of maintenance of dykes and river dams due to insuffi-cient financial resources during the 1980’s.

In Portugal, no cost estimates on inaction versus adaptation/prevention have been made in the field of e.g. forest fire prevention. This renders it difficult to evaluate the cost efficiency of measures put in place. It would be useful to as-sess the impact of the measures put in place as an input to future prioritisation.

Financing mechanism In Portugal, a national financing mechanism was established in the aftermath of the forest fires. Established in 2004, the Portuguese Forest Fund has a budget of 30 million EUR per year. 60 % is earmarked for forest fire prevention.

EU added value The lack of common methodologies, in particular with regard to economic assessments and common methods for analysis and presentation is a barrier to an effective and truly constructive dialogue between two or more individual Member States on possible cross-border issues and to sharing data, information, experience and knowledge. The EU could play an important role in facilitating the establishment of common methodology and assessments.

5.10 Research Findings A strong research layer and tradition and the willingness to invest funds and

resources are important drivers for promoting prevention. The Swedish exposi-tion "Sweden facing climate change - threats and opportunities, SOU 2007:60" and the Portuguese exposition "Climate Change in Portugal, Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project" have been important drivers and a common reference for the efforts done in the field of prevention. The French climate change adaptation strategy of 2006 contributed towards creating a na-tional common outset and defining overall goals for preventive initiatives.

In Sweden, the Commission on Climate and Vulnerability was appointed by the Swedish Government in June 2005 to assess the impacts at regional and local levels of global climate change, including an assessment of both costs and benefits to Swedish society. The core assignment of the Commission was to examine society's vulnerability to extreme weather events and long-term cli-mate change and to assess the need for various sectors of society to adapt to a changed climate.



72

.

In general, lack of resources, including financial resources, is a barrier to de-velopment and progress in the field of prevention both in the area of research and development and in the area of real capacity building. Romania faces insuf-ficient funding for research into and studies on e.g. flooding. In order to acti-vate all relevant resources in society, steps have yet to be taken in terms of de-fining the role of the private sector in climate adaptation. In Portugal, this need was articulated due to the fact that the role of the private sector is still unclear. It will be useful and necessary jointly to formulate their role.

EU added value The EU could pave the way for even more coordinated EU-financed research and development to improve prevention, in particular with respect to high pri-ority topics and joint issues, such as e.g. coastal erosion, which was provided as an example by the four case study countries.

The EU could establish an EU Centre of Excellence which could facilitate the systematic and easy access experience and lessons learnt and take the lead in developing operational methods for cost-benefit assessments and other impor-tant tools that may assist the framing of comprehensive prevention strategies.

5.11 Additional recommendations for a possible EU intervention

Judging from the case studies and building on the desk research, the recom-mendations may be further expanded to:

• Consider an EU intervention, which should, however, not result in the es-tablishment of new national organisational structures;

• Consider the role of and important contribution from an effective, well-enforced, spatial planning system for disaster prevention;

• Take on a strong role in research and development with regard to knowl-edge, procedures, skills, technologies and equipment;

• Put a strong emphasis on building up a single point of entry at the EU level as regards prevention, and, if possible, call on Member States to establish a similar entry point;.

• Consider the extent to which EU mechanisms could benefit from a coordi-nation vis-à-vis the ISDR national platforms and the European platform.



73

.

Annex 1 - Methodology This report constitutes the draft final report on the study on "Member States Approaches to Prevention of Natural and Manmade Disasters - a critical analy-sis". The study serves to shed light on the way that prevention is organised, managed and implemented today in Member States. As part of the study, analy-ses are made of four different Member States identified in collaboration with DG-Environment.

The study on the Community Setting analyses various options for the possible framing of an EU intervention. In this, the study is inspired both by other com-parable initiatives such as the Flooding Directive and the Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation and by this study.

Phases of this study As described in the introduction to this report, the Member State study can be said to consist mainly of four consecutive steps:

• Inception phase (reported on in the inception report);

• Desk study phase (reported on in the inception report and in this report);

• Case study phase (in progress - separate country report under final prepara-tion);

• Analyses and conclusions (reported in this final report).

During the desk study phase, various sources of literature were consulted. As it was not possible (or the intention) to cover all 27 Member States, the team chose a broad selection of countries with different features with regard to rele-vant indicators. In the desk study, a total of nine Member States were thus stud-ied in detail, and two additional ones at a more superficial level.

The four case countries that have been studied in more detail are:

As an important front-runner and with a decentralised structure, France will present the angle of a country that attached great importance to the area and that acts very proactively. Furthermore, France is among the three Member States that benefit most from the Solidarity Fond. In the period 1999-2003, France experienced wind storms, floods and extreme temperatures.

Being a Southern European country, Portugal represents a country that has re-cent experience with a major disaster (and several parallel events) and which has recently revised its strategy for civil protection by incorporating the preven-tion angle, This has resulted in a positive outcome. Portugal has experience with both floods and forest fires as well as with wind storms and drought.

Romania is among the case study countries because the country is an example of a country which recently joined the EU, and which has several cross-border issues. Romania has experience with earthquakes, flooding and drought. Fur-

The Member State study

The study on Com-munity Setting

Selection of case countries



74

.

thermore, COWI has a strong foothold in Romania which will contribute to-wards obtaining the information relevant for a case study.

The fourth country is Sweden. Sweden represents a country which features in systematic and well-organised approach to a range of issues coupled with a strong environmental profile. Their experience with risk strategies and risk management also seems relevant. Sweden has experience with flooding, slides and epidemics.

Prior to the missions to each of the case countries and based on the desk study, we have, constructed a number of tentative hypotheses with regard to what we may observe during the missions. Also, we have developed a long list of issues to investigate when undertaking the case studies. The long list is organised around the following themes:

• Issues that need clarification in terms of competent authorities; • Issues that can assist to clarify the chosen approaches;. • Issues relating to risks and threats that need clarification;. • Issues to investigate to identify gaps and weaknesses. • The way forward.

The case studies investigate the legal, organisational and institutional frame-work of prevention in the Member States and the prevention approaches that characterise each of the four Member States. The case studies aim at describing the current approaches to prevention in Member States thereby supporting and inform the study on the Community Setting, and the further work by the Com-mission on the possible framing of an EU intervention.

This has been done by means of a four-staged process: First, a desk study on each country was conducted; second, a mission to conduct face-to-face inter-views was undertaken; third, the draft report was reviewed and commented on by the interviewees. Fourth, one representative of each of the case studies was invited to Copenhagen for a one-day workshop to discuss the emerging conclu-sions and recommendations from the study. Romania, Sweden and France par-ticipated in the workshop.

It should be noted that both the case country reports and this final report do not aim to provide a comprehensive picture of the whole set-up of each or all of Member States. Rather, the purpose is to identify features and characteristics that:

• any EU initiative must pay attention to in order not to impose additional (administrative) costs on a country or to call for additional structures that are not sufficiently justified in the light of the subsidiarity principles and proportionality;

• could be of more generic interest and which could therefore be considered when framing a possible EU intervention.

Preparation of case studies

Purpose and scope of case studies



75

.

During the interviews, interviewees offered their viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses of the national set-up, and their views on areas where a possible EU intervention would bring added value.



76

.

Annex 2 - List of Abbreviations Abbreviations Explanations

ToR Terms of Reference

DKKV, FPCN, PLANAT A Network of European National Platforms and Focal Points for Natural Disaster Reduction

UN-ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

COM Communication

CS Community setting

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe

ISPU Higher Institute of Emergency Planning

EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement

GDP gross domestic product

SWOT Analysis analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

MIC Monitoring and Information Centre

PPRR prevention-preparedness-response-restoration

MS Member States

RA/RM Risk Assessment and Risk Management

DRR, Romania National Report regarding Disaster Management in Roma-nia

PPP Private Public Partnerships

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

CEP Committee for Environmental Protection

DKKV, AFPCN, PLANAT A Network of European National Platforms and Focal Points for Natural Disaster Reduction

CEA Insurer CEA is the European insurance and reinsurance federation



77

.

Annex 3 List of consulted sources 'A Network of European National Platforms and Focal Points for Natural Disas-ter Reduction, 2007 (DKKV, AFPCN, PLANAT)

Civil protection and Cross-border cooperation - A greater role for regional and local authorities, Committee of the Regions - Udine, 27.11.2005

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Annex to the The 2005 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Stocktaking of Progress, {COM(2005)37 final}

Communication from the Commission on a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Brussels 12.12.2006, COM (2006) 786 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT On the review of the Sustainable Develop-ment Strategy, A platform for action, Brussels, 13.12.2005, COM(2005) 658 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, COM(2007) 225 final, including COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the COMMUNICATION.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Addressing the challenge of water scar-city and droughts in the European Union, Brussels, 18.7.2007, COM(2007) 414 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL,THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Flood risk man-agement, Flood prevention, protection and mitigation, Brussels, 12.07.2004, COM(2004)472 final

Comparative Analysis of the interministerial management of major hazards, Document prepared by the Higher Institute of Emergency Planning, ISPU, Bel-gium 2005.

'Comparative Analysis of the Interministerial Management of Major Hazards', Council of Europe 2005 under EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement

Comparative Study of the Regulations concerning major risk management in the 25 Member States of the Council of Europe's EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, AD/CAT 2003/39.Consultation on the future instrument addressing prevention of, preparedness for and response to disasters: Issues paper - Brus-sels, 31 January 2005



78

.

Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accidents-hazards involving dangerous substances (Seveso II)

DECISION No 1600/2002/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Envi-ronment Action Programme.

DIRECTIVE 2007/.../EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of…on the assessment and management of flood risks

Directive of the European Parliament and the Council establishing an Infra-structure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) - Brussels, 17.1.2007, 2004/0175 (COD)

Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries

European Parliament, Joint Motion for a Resolution on Natural Disasters, 3. September 2007.

For a European Civil Protection Force: Europe Aid. Report by Michel Barnier, May 2006.

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): From Concept to Reality - Brussels, 10.11. 2005, COM(2005) 565 final

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): Establishing a GMES capacity by 2008 - (Action Plan (2004-2008)) - Brussels, 3.2.2004, COM(2004) 65 final

GREEN PAPER FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action - Brussels, 29.6.2007, COM(2007) 354 final

Green Paper on a European programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Brussels 15.11.2005, COM (2005) 576 final.

International CEP handbook, 2006

Mapping the impact of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen 2003

National Web sides

'On better terms', UNISDR



79

.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council establish-ing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the Community (INSPIRE) - Brussels, 23.7.2004, COM(2004) 516 final

Proposal for a Directive of the Council on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection, Brussels 12.12.2006, COM (2006) 787 final.

Questionnaires on Hazard Mapping

'Reducing the Social and Economic Impact of Climate Change and Natural Ca-tastrophes - insurance solutions and public-private partnerships', CEA Insurer of Europe 2007

Reports and information on disaster reduction for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (Kobe-Hyogo, Japan 2005)

Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) − Renewed Strategy UN ISDR - Web, country information

UN-ISDR: Acting with common purpose, Proceedings of the first session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, 5-7 June 2007,

UN-ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, Building the resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, 18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Japan.

UN-ISDR Words into Action - A guide for implementing the Hyogo Frame-work.

Vade Mecum of Civil Protection in the European Union, 1999

Vade-Mecum of Civil Protection in the European Union - Brussels, Updated version of October 1999.

Working documents on questionnaires on the future instrument addressing pre-vention of, preparedness for and response to disasters - Brussels, 2003 [Includ-ing responses to questionnaires from Member States]



80

.

Annex 4 List of missions and interviews Country Period Interview person Institution Materials

received

France 7-9 Janu-ary 2008

Laurent Pavard, Roland Nuss-baum and Phil-ippe Boulle,

AFPCN Various In-surance ma-terial

Rene Feuntain Ministry Ecologie

Marc Gillet ONERC National Cli-mate Adapta-tion Plan

Colonel P. NARDIN, Chef de la Mission des Relations Internationales

Direction de la Défense et de la Sécurité Civiles, Ministère de l’Intérieur

na

Romania 16-18 January 2008

Director Mary-Jeanne ADLER

Ministry Environment and sustainable development

ppt presenta-tion

Prof. Dumitru G. BADEA

Insurance Institute na

Colenel Razvan BALULESCU, Francics Sen-zaconi

Ministry Interior and admini-stration

ppt presenta-tions

Portugal 7-9 Janu-ary 2008

Professor F.D: Santos

Faculty of Science at the University of Lisabon

Alteracoes climaticas em Portugal cenários, impactos e medidas de adaptacao. Projecto SIAM II. Ed. F.D. Santos e P. Miranda, 2006.

Climate Change: Mitigation Strategies in Portugal. MISP. En-ergy and Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions: an exercise of Prospective for Portugal up to 2070.



81

.

Country Period Interview person Institution Materials received Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian.

Engineer Miguel Galente

Forest agency of the Minis-try of Agriculture

Patricia Gaspar Civil Protection Authority, of the Ministry of the Interior

Dr. Nuñez La-casta, Co-ordinator of Ex-ecutive Commit-tee

Portugal's Climate Change Commission

Maria do Carmo Palma, Head of division, emer-gencias e Riscos Ambientais

Instituto do Ambiente of the Ministry of Environment

Sweden 3-4 De-cember 2007

Rolf Nordengren (General issues), Anders Lundberg (RIB - Decision Support System), Anna-Karin Eng-ström (Seveso), Anna Norlander (Flooding), Åsa Kyrk-Gere (EU-cooperation) and others in Rolf Nordengrens team.

Swedish Rescue Services Agency (Räddningsverket)

ppt presenta-tion and movie

Principal Secre-tary for the Commission on Climate and Vul-nerability Tom Hedlund

Swedish Environmental Pro-tection Agency (Naturvårds-verket)

ppt presenta-tion

Sweden fac-ing climate change - threats and opportunities

SOU 2007:60

Head of section in Coordination Department Anna Nyman

The Swedish Emergency Management Agency - SEMA (Krisberedskapsmyn-digheten - KBM)

Leaflets and handbooks on risk- and vulnerability analysis. Threat and risk report 2006.

Date post:	09-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Member States' Approaches towards Prevention Policy - a...

Documents