Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.4.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Committees on Regional Development, the Environment and Agriculture and the respective rapporteurs, Mr Galeote Quecedo, Mr Berend, Mr Capoualas Santos and Mrs Estrela, for their hard and constructive work.
Equally, the Commission is prepared to cofinance prevention measures under the cohesion and rural development policies. Member States are invited to include appropriate actions in their programmes for the forthcoming period, where prevention will be one of the priorities.
Under the rural development pillar, Member States can also implement specific measures to restore the potential of forestry or agricultural production. Under the rural development programmes, they can also request that a ‘severe natural disaster’ be recognised as
in order to derogate from certain conditions under the ‘agri-environment’ measures. Those possibilities continue in the new programming period from 2007 to 2013.
We must not forget, though, that natural disasters are not the only threat the Union is faced with. It must be prepared for and able to respond effectively to challenges. Major man-made disasters, major threats to public health and acts of terrorism might require just as much of a common European response. For the Commission, it is sometimes difficult to explain why the Union should be absent in some circumstances. The lack of a concrete expression of Union solidarity has already been a source of embarrassment to the Union during some of the traumatic events of recent years. The Commission is therefore particularly grateful for the widespread support expressed in Mr Berend’s report for extending the EU Solidarity Fund to non-natural disasters and for enlarging the scope of eligible operations accordingly.
The Solidarity Fund created in 2002 has generally worked quite successfully, if judged against the objectives and conditions set out in its legal basis. Aid has been granted in 21 cases, concerning 15 Member States and candidate countries. Those who criticise the Solidarity Fund as being ineffective or too slow have a point. However, experience since 2002 has also led the Commission to the view that the existing fund has a number of shortcomings and that modifications to the current regulation are necessary. That is why we have proposed a new Solidarity Fund Regulation. The new proposal is based on the current Solidarity Fund, while introducing a number of modifications aimed at widening its scope, making the fund more transparent, and introducing a number of operational improvements, in particular the possibility of making advance payments so that the fund reacts more quickly and effectively.
The Commission nevertheless considers that the fund must remain limited to public emergency intervention. Insured or private damage, including agricultural damage, should not be compensated. The ‘polluter pays’ principle and third party liability must continue to apply.
As with the current fund, the new proposal is based on the subsidiarity principle. The EU should intervene only when a state is considered to be no longer in a position to tackle a disaster alone. Consequently, there should be a relatively high threshold for European intervention. Today this threshold is defined in terms of direct damage, which must exceed EUR 3 billion, or 0.6% of GNI.
With the new proposal, the Commission has therefore sought to improve the transparency and simplicity of the criteria governing the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund. That would help the national authorities to have a clearer idea of when the fund is likely to be able to support them in recovering from a disaster.
Alongside the enlarged scope, a major element of the proposal is therefore a new definition of the criteria for triggering the fund. The operationally complicated regional criteria would be abolished in favour of only quantitative criteria. In compensation for the loss of the regional criteria, the quantitative threshold would be reset at EUR 1 billion, or 0.5% of GNI, whichever is the lower. This would increase the predictability of the European Union’s Solidarity Fund decisions, thus reducing the workload in the Member States in preparing applications for support that have little or no chance of success.
Solely in the case of truly unexpected and exceptional situations, such as those where physical damage is limited, for instance terrorist attacks or major public health crises, the new fund could be mobilised by a political decision of the Commission, to be confirmed by the European Parliament and the Council.
Recent trends seem to indicate a growing vulnerability of the European Union to disasters, and natural disasters in particular. The incidence of extreme weather events and related natural disasters is increasing, perhaps fuelled by the effects of climate changes. This year again, floods have raged in central and eastern Europe with four countries – Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria – requesting assistance through the Community mechanism for civil protection. I am proud to say that European solidarity and generosity has once again mitigated the affliction those countries had to suffer.
The four reports rightly point out the human, environmental and financial costs of such disasters. The Commission therefore very much welcomes the European Parliament’s initiative to examine the various aspects involved, with a joint effort by no less than three parliamentary committees. The jointly organised hearing earlier this spring has certainly made a valuable contribution to this process.
The reports rightly consider a whole range of measures aimed at improving risk prevention and the response to crises. The Commission agrees with the recommendations regarding the need to adjust action in the area of prevention and management of natural disasters, as well as the need to coordinate Community instruments.
In fact, the reports reinforce the Commission’s integrated approach to its policy on disasters, which includes instruments regarding prevention, immediate response and more longer-term, solidarity-based action. This approach is intended to strengthen the EU’s capacity and effectiveness in preparing for and responding to major disasters, while avoiding duplication of effort.
Some of the proposals contained in the reports have already been endorsed through the Commission’s action. We are now proposing even more concrete ways to act. Our recast of the Council Decision establishing the Community mechanism for civil protection is the legal embodiment of a number of proposals put forward in these reports. These proposals are consistent with the Rapid Response and Preparedness Instrument. The recent Barnier report also explores certain forward-looking suggestions for our response to disasters.
The Commission also welcomes the progress on the negotiations for the proposed floods directive on the assessment and management of floods and the positive vote in the recent ENVI Committee meeting. The Commission would equally welcome strong support from this House for a directive that gives all citizens a right to the same approach and level of ambition for flood risk protection, prevention and preparedness, regardless of where they live in the Community: in transboundary or national river basins, or in the coastal areas of the Community.
Not only are floods on the increase with changes to our climate, but droughts have become more prevalent in Europe. At the request of a number of Member States, the Commission is analysing the issues of water scarcity and droughts. Options are under consideration and we expect that a Commission staff paper will be available shortly.
Another relevant instrument for the future could be Life+, the new financial instrument for the environment. It aims
to support the efforts of Member States in the field of forest fire prevention, mainly through the implementation of knowledge-related measures such as training and awareness-raising campaigns."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples