EU) Preventing and managing disaster risk in Europe - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2024)130 - Progress on implementation of article 6 of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU) Preventing and ...
document	COM(2024)130
date	March 12, 2024

agreements are reported in border regions, for instance on early warnings and notification risks, cooperation on risk assessments and protocols for preparedness, information exchange on early warnings and subsequent response.

E. Risk awareness raising and alert systems ³⁶

Not all Member States and Participating States report thoroughly on risk awareness, even though adverse consequences of disasters can be reduced through preparedness of the population on how to act in case of an emergency. About three quarters of countries report some activities carried out by civil protection authorities and other key bodies to deliver disaster risk information and raise risk awareness of the population, but specific information is scarce. Outreach campaigns use different communication tools (TV and radio advertising, social media, short animated films, leaflets and brochures) and webpages providing information on risks. There are some good examples of education campaigns.

Countries inform the public about the risks to raise general risk awareness, but only half of the countries report that their risk assessments are publicly available. Recurring risk awareness campaigns often address all aspects of resilience and self-protection relating to risks and emergencies, but only a few countries share details of these campaign strategies. Floods and wildfire awareness raising campaigns are the most cited risk specific campaigns. A third of countries report that the education systems are important channels for raising risk awareness.

Alerting and warning the population are key to emergency and crisis communication, but just over half of the countries report using a range of ways to alert the population in the event of an emergency. Examples of tools reported are sirens, mobile phone messages, special smartphone apps and the use of traditional media (radio/TV). The scope to provide early warning and the lead time that can be given to the population and responsible authorities to act depends on the type of disaster risk. Some countries refer to the implementation of EU legislation requiring public warnings by mobile phones by 2022 ³⁷.

It is essential to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups when managing risks, but few countries report such activities. A handful of countries report guidelines on how to take account of the needs of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in the event of an emergency. A few countries report specific risk awareness initiatives to support vulnerable groups.

F. Early warning systems and response capacities

Early identification of impending disaster events is crucial to reduce adverse consequences. Most Member States and Participating States report having systems in place. However, only about half of the countries that identify certain risks as relevant, report having early warning systems in place for those risks. Early warning systems are in place for a wide range of disasters, primarily related to natural hazards, with extreme weather and floods most often covered, followed by earthquakes and wildfires. For technological risks, early warning systems for nuclear and radiological accidents are the most commonly reported, followed by early warning systems for cyber risks, critical infrastructure disruption and industrial accidents. It is therefore important to set up real-time monitoring of contributing factors (such as dry vegetation conditions raising the wildfire risk, soil saturation for increased flood risk, seismic movement, propagation of viral outbreaks).

Many countries use international or European early warning systems, notably on seismic risk, nuclear and radiological monitoring and health threat monitoring, but only a few refer to Copernicus services. Countries report some examples of targeted cross-border early warning systems with notification of disaster events. Private sector actors are reported to be responsible for monitoring, detection and forecasting of risks related to their economic activities.

It is essential to have well prepared and equipped public and private actors tasked with response to emergencies. However, only a few countries report on critical infrastructure for emergency response being in place. To manage the changing risk landscape with intensified climate related hazards such as floods and wildfires, countries need to improve their national response capacity. About half of the countries report of systems to ensure assets are adequately maintained. Some limited information was provided on specific capacities for wildfire response, flood response, CBRN ³⁸ and emergency health response.

In light of the above, the following recommendations on improving disaster risks governance are put forward.

The Commission, together with the Member States and Participating States, should :

- Further develop the sharing of good practices among countries and experts, including under the Knowledge Network, with the objective of improving planning tools and decision-making structures to support effective risk governance ³⁹.
- Further improve pan-European early warning tools and services. Where relevant, increase the use of tools such as the ‘Copernicus Emergency Management Services’ and the 24/7 scientific emergency reporting service provided by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Facility covering natural as well as nuclear and radiological hazards.

Member States and Participating States are invited to:

- Foster a whole-of-society approach in all stages of the DRM process, involving all stakeholders: public institutions, academic and research bodies, the private sector, civil society and communities.⁴⁰
- Strengthen disaster risk management, including actions to manage key risks with cross-border impacts and risks related to disasters that cause or are capable of causing multi-country transboundary effects.
- Further develop early warning systems for relevant risks, and where possible draw on the transboundary systems developed by the EU, such as the Copernicus’ European Flood Awareness System, the European Forest Fire Information System and the European Drought Observatory.
- Promote stronger actions at national level to take the needs of vulnerable people when managing risks.

4.3 Mainstreaming and investing in disaster risk management

G. Cross sectoral disaster risk management ⁴¹

Good examples have been reported on how disaster risk management is carried out under policies other than civil protection and by other relevant government departments and bodies. However, improvements in cross- sectoral risk management are still needed to achieve whole-of-society resilience. National reports provide good examples of horizontal coordination mechanisms where national governance structures involve bodies from different sectors throughout the disaster risk management cycle, notably public authorities, the private sector, local authorities, civil society, academic and research institutions. With some gaps in the reporting on horizontal coordination and cross-sectoral coordination and with very few reported comprehensive risk management strategies, more can be done to raise the profile of disaster risk management tools, for instance ensuring risk assessments are relevant to other sectors.

Other EU policies also contribute to disaster resilience. Disaster risk management needs to regularly integrate new policy tools developed at EU level, including those developed under the European Green Deal ⁴². Some countries report on other EU policies and laws that enhance disaster resilience and cross-border cooperation, such as critical infrastructure, cyber security, climate change adaptation, drought and flood risk management, industrial accidents and cooperation on nuclear safety. These examples show that disaster risk management must be coherent and find synergies with other policies, notably climate change, critical infrastructure protection and sustainable finance policies.

Though disaster risks go beyond the climate-related hazards and climate adaptation measures cover many areas beyond disaster risk management, the synergies between the two processes are substantial. Two thirds of countries report that adaptation plans are available at national level. Examples of areas common to disaster risk management and climate adaptation measures are the monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data on climate-related disaster risks. To enable synergies and to avoid underestimation of disaster risks, it is also essential that disaster risk assessments include climate change projections and scenarios.

Critical infrastructure disruptions feature strongly among key disaster risks, notably disruption of energy networks, water services, telecommunication, transport networks, financial structures, food supply and healthcare. These have high potential to cascade to further sectors. Some maritime critical infrastructure like ports may risk becoming more vulnerable with climate change impacts, notably sea level rise. Just over half of the countries report having policies in place to protect critical infrastructure. A third of the countries report having specific measures in place, such as planning for civil protection, risk and threat assessments and analysis, authorities-operators cooperation, procedural and technical aspects and risk-specific measures.

Sustainable finance policies provide opportunities for climate adaptation and risk prevention measures. Disaster insurance supporting the recovery from a disaster can also play a role in incentivising prevention and ‘building back smarter’. A few countries mention in the national reports insurance as a private-sector source of disaster risk financing. A survey on disaster insurance carried out among national disaster prevention experts shows that insurance covers many disasters from natural hazards across the Member States. Nevertheless, there is a considerable climate protection gap due to various obstacles such as the cost of insurance, limiting conditions, caps on compensation a lack of insurance available in high-risk areas ⁴³.

H. National public and private finance mechanisms ⁴⁴

Disaster risk management investments require adequate funding. Robust national public finances are need to cater for both response to and recovery from increasing climate-related impacts and for preparedness, prevention and climate adaptation measures. Examples of national disaster risk financing mechanisms are provided in many reports. They include contingency reserves or specific disaster funds (reported to be available in a few countries) and transfer of financial risk of disasters with the help of private actors notably in the form of disaster insurance. Just over half the countries report of flexible budget provisions, in the form of reserve budgets and contingency funds to cater for emergencies. Few countries reported of dedicated funding for prevention to meet growing need for investment in prevention to reduce losses through strengthened resilience. More often, countries reported that budgets are available for preparedness and emergency response ⁴⁵.

While EU funding is available for disaster risk management, including for prevention, the reported uptake is however limited. Although two thirds of countries mentioned some EU funds, the reporting is neither coherent nor comprehensive. For example, only about a quarter mentioned the use of structural and cohesion policy funds (2014-2020), although about two thirds of EU Member States used these funds for disaster risk management expenditure ⁴⁶.

For each country, the approval of disaster risk management expenditures under the cohesion policy funds in the 2021-2027 programming period, is conditional on the submission of Article 6 reports (enabling conditions ⁴⁷). The DRM summary reports received include the key risks relevant to the country, but only very limited information was provided on funding sources, prioritisation and timeframe to implement such measures. The Commission therefore drew upon additional and complementary sources of information submitted by the Member States, such as adaptation strategies and other national planning tools and strategies, for assessing compliance by EU Member States with these conditions for accessing EU cohesion policy funding.

In the light of the above, the following recommendations on mainstreaming and investing in disaster risk management are put forward.

The Commission, will:

- Encourage Member States and Participating States to make more systematic use of the EU funds available for investment in prevention, preparedness and climate adaptation.
- Consider options for stronger cross-sectoral approach to incentivise disaster risk prevention in key policies and funds.

Member States and Participating States are invited to:

- Take into account the need for cross-sectoral disaster risk management strategies to further develop national disaster risk financing options, also for the prevention.
- Consider increasing funding for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in the current programming periods.

4. PROGRESS ON EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE

A wide range of EU sectoral legislation and policies contribute to strengthening disaster resilience. The legal and policy framework for managing disaster risk goes beyond civil protection. This was already mentioned in the Annex to the 2019 Reporting Guidelines for Disaster Risk Management, which refer to the EU policies that cover multiple aspects of disaster risk management. Since December 2019, the EU has further developed its policy and legal framework, linked to the European Green Deal, the measures taken to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Examples of more recent developments that merit further consideration in the efforts to boost prevention and preparedness in the Member States and, where applicable, Participant States include:

- EU Climate Law ⁴⁸ which includes the objectives on climate change adaptation. The EU Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA)⁴⁹, an [upcoming] European Environment Agency report, should inform future climate and disaster risk assessments. Information on key climate related hazards and impacts reported by countries in the DRM summary reports have contributed to the EUCRA.

- The Directive on the resilience of critical entities⁵⁰ covers preparedness, response and international cooperation on a wider range of sectors that were identified as vulnerable according to the Article 6 risk assessment. It also covers public administrations such as those in charge of civil protection. EU Member States need to carry out risk assessments taking UCPM Risk assessments into account. Operators of critical entities also need to develop risk assessment and implement prevention and protection measures. The Directive⁵¹ on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity establishes a mechanism for cyber crisis management in full coherence with horizontal and sectoral mechanisms, including the UCPM. The Directive requires the carrying out of coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains.

- Implementation of the Floods and the Water Framework Directives is important for disaster risk management ⁵². Some EU water laws have been amended or introduced to address disaster resilience aspects, notably risks in the drinking water supply chain and access to safe drinking water⁵³ and wastewater reuse for the agriculture sector to address increasing water scarcity and droughts ⁵⁴.

- The EU Forest Strategy for 2030⁵⁵ calls for more resilient forests and properly managed in the fire risk zones. It calls for landscape management and planning, ecosystem restoration, fuel management through grazing and controlled fires, and that integrated wildfire risk management shall involve the expertise and resources available in all relevant policy fields.

- Preparedness for future pandemics and other health threats requiring attention at Union level has increased with the adoption of the EU Health Union and the establishment of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).

- The European Electronic Communication Code required that the MS establish public warning systems to alert the population by mobile phones by 2022 ⁵⁶.

- The taxonomy for sustainable investments⁵⁷ can help attracting private finance for disaster risk awareness raising and adaptation measures for a wide range of economic activities. The EU Sustainable finance strategy⁵⁸ called for the need to raise climate risk literacy levels of financial actors to enhance the understanding high-risk investments in view of climate related risks. Disaster risk awareness raising activities can contribute to such literacy.

- EU funding is available for disaster risk management under several EU instruments, such as Cohesion policy funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the Recovery and Resilience Facility. From 2021 to 2027, the total amount of EU support earmarked for DRM and climate change adaptation under these three instruments reaches nearly EUR 26 billion. The Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation also supports disaster risk management. The EU Solidarity Fund furthermore covers damage from disasters to some extent. With a trend of increased economic damage suffered as a result of disasters in Europe, consideration should be given to further reinforcing the Fund.

- Tailor-made technical expertise is available to Member States through the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument (TSI), and it can help Member States design and implement reforms, including in the area of disaster risk management ⁵⁹. Under the UCPM, technical assistance and projects at national level and cross-border projects aiming at strengthening disaster risk management are also supported ⁶⁰.

- In the context of the Economic Governance Reform, the Commission has actively engaged with stakeholders (Ministries of Finance of Member States, independent fiscal institutions, non-governmental organisations, and insurers) on how to reflect the fiscal cost of climate change in the national budgetary frameworks. The review of main concepts of disaster risk financing, evidence from Member States, and the key elements of a disaster risk financing strategy to limit the fiscal cost of climate-related disasters aim to raise awareness and promote exchange of best practices among Member States.⁶¹

Effective and coherent cross-sectoral risk management must take into account these and future developments in the evolving risk management policy landscape. The mid-term review of the Sendai framework ⁶² noted that a multitude of policies contribute to disaster risk reduction such as floods and drought risk management in water policy, cyber security policy, forestry and biodiversity polices, health policies, research and tools for disaster risk management such as earth observations.

5. THE WAY FORWARD TO A DISASTER RESILIENT EUROPE

Disaster risk management benefits society as a whole and plays a pivotal role in building resilient societies. The numerous lives claimed by disasters in recent years’ extreme weather events remind us that, no matter how fast the response is, prevention will provide the greatest benefits over the long term. Preventing and preparing for the next disaster is essential if we want to protect our society, nature and cultural heritage. Civil protection cannot work in isolation; it is essential to work together across sectors throughout the full disaster risk management cycle.

The UCPM was set up to create an EU framework for assistance to respond to disasters when national capacities were overwhelmed. Over the years, revisions of the UCPM have expanded this framework to go beyond disaster response and encompass a broader spectrum of disaster preparedness and prevention. Article 6 sets up a framework for risk management. This report shows that, while considerable progress has been made, there is still scope to do more on different levels.

The Union disaster resilience goals adopted in February 2023, raise the stakes of disaster prevention and risk management action at the EU and national levels and set an ambitious common agenda going forward. In line with the actions set out in the Communication on the Union disaster resilience goals, this Report has identified a number of complementary actions and recommendations that are needed to achieve these goals in the UCPM countries. The Union disaster resilience goals are a concrete contribution from the civil protection community to build our overall resilience to disasters in Europe. Member States and Participating States are invited to take action to implement and make progress on achieving these goals, including in the context of the different activities under Article 6.

Damage from catastrophic events is rising enormously, but our overall capacity to absorb and recover from such shocks is limited. More and better prevention investment in a ‘whole of EU approach’ is therefore needed. As the disaster risk landscape continues to evolve and we face the consequences of climate change, the Commission will continue to work relentlessly to further reinforce the EU’s resilience to future risks.

1 Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17.12.2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism as amended, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924, hereafter referred to as ‘the UCPM Decision’. The 27 Member States and 10 Participating States are part of the UCPM (Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Türkiye; Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined in 2022; the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine joined in 2023).

2 COM(2024)91 final of 12.3.2024

3 Under Article 5(1)(g) of the UCPM Decision, the Commission must ‘report periodically, in accordance with the deadlines set out in point (d) of article 6(1), to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made in the implementation of Article 6’.

4 SWD(2024)130 of 12.3.2024

5 Amending acts : Decision (EU) 2019/420 (OJ L 77, 20.3.2019, p. 1); Regulation (EU) 2021/836 (OJ L 77, 26.5.2021, p. 1).

6 Under article 28(1a) of the UCPM, the Participating States shall participate in the activities of the Union Mechanism, according to the objectives, requirements, criteria, procedures, and deadlines provided for in the Decision. Both EU Member States and Participating States are for the purpose of this report hereafter referred to as ‘countries, unless otherwise indicated, i.e. as either EU Member States or as Participating States.

7 SWD(2017)176 of 23.5.2017; SWD(2020)330 of 30.11.2020.

8 The reporting must take place by end of December 2020 and every three years thereafter.

9 COMMISSION NOTICE Reporting Guidelines on Disaster Risk Management, Art. 6(1)d of Decision No 1313/2013/EU (2019/C 428/07). OJ C 428 of 20.12.2019, p. 8. These guidelines, among other things, refer to a Commission Staff Working document (SEC(2010)1626 of 21.12.2010) on “Risk Assessment and Mapping of guidelines for Disaster Management” as a reference document.

10 Iceland did not submit a report for the 2020 deadline. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine were not yet Participating States in 2020 and were not subject to the reporting requirement.

11 BG, CY, EE, FI, MN, MT, PL, PT, RO, RS, TR, as well as Georgia, Tunisia, Algeria and the Republic of Moldova and the UK (as an EU Member State at the time).

12 DRMKC Risk Data Hub (europa.eu)

13 See chapter 3.

14 Recommendation establishing Union disaster resilience goals OJ C 56, 15.2.2023, p. 1. Communication on “European Union Disaster Resilience Goals: Acting together to deal with future emergencies”, COM(2023) 61 final of 8.2.2023.

15 When national reports and findings are referred to in this report, it refers to reports submitted to the Commission under Article 6(1)(d) by the 27 EU Member States and the 6 countries that were Participating States at the end of December 2020 (Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Türkiye).

16 As set out in the previous reports on Overview of risk reports, SWD(2017)176; SWD(2020)330.

17 See above.

18 At the time of publication of this report, the reporting for the 2023 deadline was still ongoing and reports submitted have not yet been analysed. The findings do not necessary reflect recent developments at national level.

19 Reports were not submitted by Montenegro, North Macedonia and Türkiye (for the 2015 deadline), Latvia, Malta, Montenegro, Türkiye (for the 2018 deadline), and Iceland (for the 2020 deadline).

20 Article 3(2)(a) (UCPM).

21 Staff working document, questions Q3 and Q4.

22 See Annex II to the supporting staff working document, and the report “Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks that the EU may face”, SWD(2020)3030, Figure 21.

23 Classification provided in implementing act for reporting Climate law reporting on adaptation. OJ L278, 26.8.2020, p.1

24 Supporting staff working document, questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18.

25 Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre Risk Data Hub:

https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/risk-data-hub.

26 Reporting guidelines, Q5, C428, 20.12.2019, p8 ff.

27 Directive 2007/60/EC requires regular reviews of preliminary flood risk assessments and flood risk management plans; likewise river basin management plans need to be updated every 6 years according to Directive 2000/60/EC.

28 Although flood hazard and risk mapping is required for all EU Member States under Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p 186), not all reported of the availability of flood mapping in the DRM summary reports.

29 Commission staff working document (SEC(2010)1626 of 21.12.2010).

30 Supporting staff working document, questions Q3, Q 13, Q15, Q16, Q21 and Q22.

31 Countries are not required to make available risk management plans to the Commission, nor to provide summary information on them. A comprehensive assessment of the progress on ‘further development and refinement of disaster risk management planning’ has therefore not been possible.

32 Supporting staff working document, questions 3, 13, 16, 21 and 22.

33 OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p 186

34 Directive 2021/18/EU, OJ L197, 24.7.2012, p.1.

35 Directive (EU)2022/2557. OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164.

36 Supporting staff working document, questions 8, 17, 19 and 20.

37 Directive (EU) 2018/1972 on a European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). OJ L321, 17.12.2018, p.36.

38 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear.

39 In line with the recommendations and follow-up actions of the Spanish Presidency Civil Protection workshop on ‘Strengthening Governance for Disaster Risk Management in Europe’ on 5-6 July 2023.

40 See above..

41 Supporting staff working document, questions 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

42 Annex to the Reporting guidelines shows the pre-European Green Deal EU policy landscape.

43 Climate protection gap SWD(2021)123 final of 27.5.2021.

44 Supporting staff working document, questions 8, 17, 19 and 20

45 SWD(2021)123 final of 27.5.2021 ‘Closing the climate protection gap- Scoping policy and data gaps’.

46 18 current EU Member States made use of Structural and cohesion policy funds for disaster risk management (2014-2020).

47 To enable Member States to access EU Cohesion policy funds, Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Annex IV (OJ L231, 30.6.2021, p. 159) sets out the conditions linked to compliance by EU Member States with EU Law. For disaster risk management, these conditions include the submission of article 6 reports and providing information on risk identification, prioritisation of measures, funding mechanisms and planning.

48 European Climate Law (europa.eu) OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1

49 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/eu-adaptation-policy/key-eu-actions/climate_risk_assessment/index_html/

50 OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164.

51 OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80

52 Directives 2007/60/EC and 2000/60/EC. Implementation Reports - European Commission (europa.eu)

53 Directive (EU) 2020/2184, OJ L435, 23.12.2020,p.1.

54 Regulation (EU) 2020/741. OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p.32.

55 COM(2021)572

56 OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p.36.

57 Regulation (EU) 2020/852. O JL 198, 22.6.2020, p.13.

58 COM(2021)390 final

59 Technical Support Instrument (TSI) (europa.eu)

60 Prevention and Preparedness Projects in Civil Protection - European Commission (europa.eu)

61 Disaster Risk Financing: Main Concepts and Evidence from EU Member States (europa.eu), 2021 and Disaster Risk Financing: Limiting the Fiscal Cost of Disasters (europa.eu), (2022)

62 SWD(2023) 151 final

EN EN