Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.4.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we all recognise the importance of being prepared for disasters. We all wish for a better response to emergency situations. Significantly, we all recognise the need to work together. The resolutions passed by Parliament last year, these commendable reports and the Commission’s proposals all aim to achieve the same purpose.
We need to strengthen all of the European Union’s existing instruments for the benefit of our environment and, more importantly, for the safety and wellbeing of our citizens.
I agree with those Members who said that actions of solidarity and actions taken to prevent disasters and deal with their consequences will bring Europe closer to its citizens. These issues are extremely important in order to get the European citizens’ full support for our work. That is why I should like to thank again all the rapporteurs, Mr Capoulas Santos, Mr Galeote Quecedo, Mrs Estrela and Mr Berend, for their excellent reports that will strengthen European identity.
The call for increased cooperation in civil protection clearly reflects the Commission’s line of thought. To react effectively to a disaster, we need to have all our available resources in a state of ready deployment. When these do not suffice or are unavailable, the Commission needs to be empowered to find alternative means.
As regards the agricultural aspects, I should like to emphasise that the Commission will do its utmost to optimise the use of existing instruments. It is clear that, at this stage, solutions or assistance for the agricultural or forestry sector in the event of natural disasters will have to come via existing instruments under the rural development and forest policies, state aid and the possibilities that exist under the first pillar of the common agricultural policy.
I would be more cautious as regards greater budgetary flexibility to ease the problems for the agricultural sector. We are tied to the funds available. I see major difficulties in using underspent budget lines for disaster relief purposes, but the Commission is prepared to analyse the feasibility of any suggestions. One difficulty, for example, is that we will only know with any certainty late in the budget year whether there is any margin left in the budget. Finally, it should be remembered that in the future we will be more likely to have to apply financial discipline, which will reduce the likelihood of underspent amounts.
The Commission is also examining whether risk and crisis management instruments to support the agricultural sector could be a way forward.
I am particularly grateful for the great expression of support the Commission’s proposal to adjust and improve the EU Solidarity Fund has received today. With the new fund, the EU will have an instrument at its disposal that allows it effectively to assist Member States and candidate countries whenever a crisis situation arises. An act of European solidarity can be counted on, no matter whether in response to a natural or another kind of serious disaster. This will be good not only for the European Union’s image but also, more importantly, for the Union, the Member States and acceding countries and their regions and, in particular, for the people affected by such disastrous events.
The rapporteur and other honourable Members have spoken in favour of all major elements of the Commission proposal. This represents invaluable support in steering the proposal through the remaining steps of the legislative procedure. In the light of this far-reaching agreement between our two institutions, the Commission appeals to the Member States and the Council to rethink their position which, up to now, has certainly been much less favourable than that of this House.
I note that you have proposed to grant Solidarity Fund assistance to candidate countries only if the same disaster also affects a Member State, even if this issue has not been discussed today. While I understand the underlying reason – i.e. not to financially overburden the fund – this proposal puts candidate countries in a worse position than they are currently in. At present, they are on an equal footing with Member States as regards eligibility for the fund. I would ask honourable Members to reflect again on whether politically this is what they really want.
I also note that the use of the Solidarity Fund for preventative measures has been proposed. There can be no doubt that prevention is an extremely important part of a comprehensive policy in relation to disasters, a view the Commission fully supports. But it cannot be the role of the Solidarity Fund, which has been designed to bear some of the emergency costs incurred by Member States in dealing with disasters. At EU level, prevention and reconstruction measures can be supported by the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund, or by agricultural funds. In fact, risk prevention is one of the European Rural Development Fund’s priorities for the period 2007-2013. In addition, rural development measures under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund can finance the restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and the introduction of appropriate prevention instruments, including risk prevention for forest fires."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples