Around the world, the human and financial costs of crises are rising. Europe is no exception. Since 1980, disasters have affected around 50 million people (more than 10% of the population) in the EU. In addition to the human cost, the average economic loss due to disasters is estimated at around €12 billion per year, totalling more than €480 billion. When faced with these statistics, the next crisis might seem right around the corner. Can we prepare better or even prevent the extent of devastation?
We have an understanding of disaster risk management (DRM), according to the UN’s Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) terminology, as “the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses.” Yet, prevention does not represent an easy political calculus. Critics are quick to flag that prevention measures may divest funding from what look like more pressing short-term issues, especially in contexts of budgetary tensions, or that they might hinder economic development. The 2024 catastrophic flooding in Valencia is an example of this: where austerity measures, along with unbridled housing and commercial developments in flood-prone areas, hindered risk-reduction policies and action plans. Furthermore, even if successful, the results of prevention and risk reduction measures are not readily visible and hard to measure and communicate upon.
In this context, what are EU and national policymakers to do? Technopolis Group has conducted a series of studies and projects related to crisis management and risk reduction in the EU over the past few years[1]. This article presents 3 pertinent lessons for fostering crisis prevention and disaster risk reduction in the EU.
Lesson 1 – Prioritise an EU strategic vision of prevention
At a strategic level, the EU can play a key catalytic role in strengthening the integration of prevention in crisis management policies and mechanisms across the continent. This need for coordinated prevention is already recognised by a wide set of EU policies and instruments. For example, the European Investment Bank (EIB) Climate Adaptation Plan incorporates disaster prevention and increased resilience as key areas of focus. Yet still, delivering on these kinds of commitments is no easy feat. To take an example, the EU Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) plays a central role in coordinating disaster response and enhancing resilience across Europe. However, when it comes to the UCPM strategy, there is a need to strengthen prevention and preparedness aspects as well as adopt a holistic approach to the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) cycle.
Technopolis’s 2024 study for DG REGIO, focused on enhancing the resilience of EU Border Regions, has also identified areas for improvement. These enhancements aim to strengthen the UCPM’s strategic vision on prevention, preparedness, and response while clearly defining key objectives in collaboration with Member and Participating States. Additionally, methodologies and procedures for prevention and preparedness require further refinement to ensure consistency across UCPM countries.
The Commission can play a pivotal role by focusing on the development of regional risk assessments, methodologies and tools, alongside risk management and response plans. Strengthening the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and aligning efforts with the Sendai Framework for DRR are crucial steps in this direction. Specific requirements and guidance from the Commission are needed to achieve a more homogeneous approach and consistent assessments. Efforts should also focus on encouraging the development of common risk assessments by improving data exchange and fostering collaboration with scientific institutions. To enhance DRM and bolster resilience across European borders, it is important to complement various national perspectives with cohesive EU-wide strategies.
Recent studies, including the abovementioned, also speak to the difficulty of moving beyond sectoral policies, funding instruments and practices, when risks are increasingly interconnected and systemic. The aptly named MYRIAD-EU project is working on a framework for the EU to assess and manage risk – in all its multitudes. MYRIAD-EU is one of many projects funded by the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, bringing together innovative methods and technologies and multi-sectoral expertise to better understand how often different combinations of hazards, or multi-hazards, might occur, as these kinds of multi-hazards occur more and more often. To get a sense of project insights, it is worth looking at one of the pilot initiatives in the Veneto region. Until now, the region had a single-hazard, single-sector risk management approach for floods, droughts, landslides, tornados, forest fires, overexploitation, sea level rise, water pollution – so, a host of interrelated risks.
Lesson 2 – Connect policymakers with key communities
If we linger a bit more on Lesson 1, there is a caveat to consider: for these kinds of approaches to be successful, a stronger emphasis on the engagement of practitioners, local actors and communities is needed. The DG REGIO study (mentioned above) came to this conclusion, showing that local authorities face significant obstacles to integrate prevention, preparedness and response due to information deficits, hindering comprehensive risk assessments, access to EU funds and better risk management policies.
According to MYRIAD-EU Project Coordinator Philip Ward, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, “the whole idea of the project is to try to bridge this gap”. By the end of the project, “policymakers, decision-makers, and practitioners will be able to develop forward-looking disaster risk management pathways that assess trade-offs and synergies of various strategies across sectors, hazards, and scales.” MYRIAD-EU has helped develop several tools to directly support practitioners and local authorities, including a six-step multi-hazard risk assessment.
Recent crises have also acutely shown the importance of public trust and support for effective prevention and risk reduction strategies. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina submerged the city of New Orleans, critically impacting some neighbourhoods like the 9th Ward and underscoring the need for raising awareness about infrastructural safeguards and evacuation plans, especially among vulnerable communities. Earlier this year, as the Los Angeles wildfires raged, reports emerged that disabled and elderly residents struggled to secure safe evacuations.
In all of this, decision-makers and public officials are realising that citizens need to be informed of how to prepare and withstand crisis. Just this week, the European Commission published its first-ever preparedness strategy. In other words, public awareness is just as important as trust in the system.
Lesson 3 – Design and adapt funding instruments to incentivise prevention
The evidence shows that investing in prevention is a cost-effective decision. The more you prepare, the less you end up paying in response and reconstruction. However, if we go back to the DG REGIO study mentioned earlier, the lack of funding for cross-border resilience projects poses a major challenge, along with the complexity of access to existing funding mechanisms. Technopolis’s evaluation for the EIB found that only a low proportion of funding through framework loans targeted investments for prevention and preparedness, partly due to the lack of appetite for this kind of spending at local and regional levels in time of budget constraints.[2]
Through their financial instruments, EU institutions – like the EIB – can bring a lot of added value by incentivising prevention and funding technical expertise to support local actors such as European municipalities in implementing prevention projects. When mobilised adequately, EU funding instruments can be powerful catalysts for prevention. For example, the INTERREG V-A Italy-France 2014-2020 cross-border European territorial cooperation programme funded the introduction of an innovative approach to manage the risks related to the Mont Cenis Dam at the border of France and Italy. It supported the establishment of a cross-border assessment system designed to assess vulnerability and monitor potential damages to the dam to prevent risk related to dam failure or rupture. It has developed satellite monitoring techniques that are specific for dams located at altitude. Furthermore, it actively engaged local communities in risk management efforts and raised awareness about the issue.
Luigi Lo Piparo, Managing Partner at Technopolis Group Belgium led the abovementioned DG REGIO study for Technopolis. According to him, “this project prioritises prevention by employing assessment methods and tools to enhance dam safety and ensure compliance with technical regulations.” Additionally, the project integrates new technologies and innovative communication tools to facilitate collaboration among bi-national actors in hazard-response, ultimately promoting a culture of risk awareness.
FACING THE FUTURE
In a context where crises are deepening, focusing on prevention and risk reduction is no longer optional. Doing so requires a general shift in mindsets, as it means accepting that a ‘state of stability’ is not necessarily a realistic prospect, even within the confines of Europe. As we have seen in the lessons and examples in this piece, a more resilient future demands strong political will and a structured approach to incentivise all stakeholders, from the most strategic to the community levels. It also calls for adopting systemic thinking and integrating various levels of severity of crises and disruptions in all foresight analysis. Having the levers and funds to support this shift, the EU cannot afford not to be at the centre of this shift towards crisis prevention.
[1] In particular, Strengthening the Resilience of EU Border Regions for DG REGIO, the MYRIAD-EU Reducing Risks Together project, and the Evaluation of EIB’s use of the framework loan product in addressing disasters and emergencies from 2008 to 2024 (soon to be published).
[2] Evaluation of EIB’s use of the framework loan product in addressing disasters and emergencies from 2008 to 2024 (soon to be published).