On 15th January 2003, the following written question was presented to the European Parliament by Mihail Papagiannakis, MEP for Greece:

In San Giuliano di Puglia, Italy, on 31 October 2002, a recently modified school building collapsed in a moderate sized earthquake resulting in the death of 27 occupants (25 of them schoolchildren). According to the European Association of Earthquake Engineering this is not an isolated incident. Similar incidents could happen in many European countries; however, the problem is preventable and the risk can be substantially reduced by a programme of expert assessment of the older and more vulnerable existing structures and a programme of strengthening works in the highest-risk areas. The rules for the assessment and strengthening of structures are available in the European Standard, Part 1-4 of Eurocode 8, prEN 1998-3. In the interest of preventing further loss of life and considering that in many Member States there is considerable earthquake activity, could the Commission formulate a directive requiring the Member States to establish programmes of assessment (according to the above-mentioned European Standard) of all buildings and structures in areas known to be prone to damaging earthquakes and of strengthening the ones which are found to be inadequate?

The question was drafted in consultation with members of the Executive Committee of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering (EAEE), and represents a first attempt by EAEE to create a higher profile for earthquake risk mitigation at the EU level.  A few weeks later (24 February 2003), an answer from Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission was presented on the European Parliament website (www.europarl.eu.int) as follows.

The Commission deeply regrets the loss of human lives and the damages caused to the population of San Giuliano di Puglia. At this stage, the Commission does not envisage any specific proposal for legislation in the field of earthquake mitigation.  However, the current action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council decision 1999/847/EC* foresees to develop initiatives in the fields of risk management methodologies, including risk mapping, for seismic and other disasters. In that context, a call for proposal shall be published in the first half of 2003. Moreover, the Commission will adopt a communication by May 2003 that will present new concrete measures to improve public safety in the context of natural and man-made hazards. The Parliament will be invited to a meeting planned for 28 February 2003 to discuss these measures, jointly with the Commission as well as the concerned stakeholders.  The above mentioned two initiatives should contribute to the establishment of assessment programmes for identifying vulnerable structures in earthquake prone areas.

The urgency of the question posed was dramatically and tragically confirmed on May 1st 2003, when another school collapsed trapping over 100 schoolchildren in a Magnitude 6.4 earthquake in Bingol in Turkey. Until these recent events highlighted the problem so clearly, it was to be expected that the European Commission would not favour the idea of regulation on this issue at the European level. In dealing with social and environmental concerns, among the possible tools for government action, regulation tends to be losing ground in the EU (in common with other advanced economies of the world) in favour of various other kinds of incentives to achieve desirable social and environmental goals. Supporting underpinning research, demonstrating best practice, voluntary codes and even tax incentives are today preferred to regulation, because of the perceived costs to the economy and the additional problems of enforcement that new regulations often bring with them. And, in any case, the principle of subsidiarity makes the EC reluctant to initiate action in any matter in which effective action can be taken by member states individually.

Earthquake protection can easily be seen in this way. Regulation would impose obligations on property-owners to strengthen their buildings, thus increasing rents and reducing the stock of cheap accommodation; and this would certainly be opposed by many of those owners, and maybe by the business community at large. And it could also be argued that each country - and each city - has its own separate risks and set of social conditions which means legislation in a uniform way across the whole EU would be inappropriate.

Nevertheless regulations do exist at a European level in many areas affecting the health and safety of the public, and particularly the workforce, and are seen as a necessary means to ensure a uniform level of protection for the citizen and a level playing field for business throughout Europe. Regulation has a special validity in circumstances where decisions affecting the risks to peoples’ life and health are taken by others (for example their employers); where individuals are not readily aware of the risks associated with their actions; and where action to mitigate the risks must be taken at a community level. All of these circumstances are true of the earthquake risk, and this is of course recognised in the regulations covering the design of new buildings, which are now in the process of being unified at EU level through the adoption of the Eurocodes. There is also a special validity, which can be widely supported, in legislation to protect the lives of schoolchildren who can have no choice over which buildings they use, and no awareness of the risks involved.

Robin Spence

President