Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-15-Speech-3-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041215.11.3-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall say straight away that I am in favour of extending the Community action programme on civil protection by two years. To me it seems not so much a free choice as a mandatory solution, without any alternatives.
We have reached the end of the current programme without a lasting, concrete solution to the problem. That very fact shows just how marginal the subject of civil protection in Europe is. I feel I have developed some modest experience in this field, as I chair the civil protection committee in Catania, the province of Italy most exposed to seismic and volcanic risk, and also because I coordinated the emergency measures for the Italian Government during the terrible eruption of Mount Etna in the summer of 2001.
Over the years I have come to the conclusion that civil protection is not just an agreeable topic for a round table or a pleasant, convivial get-together, but is a subject that is indissolubly linked to people’s safety and, as you know, safety is a physiological right before it is a constitutional right.
I believe I can say that the European Union is seriously and scandalously dragging its feet in this area. The subject was first addressed only five years ago with a number of initiatives that appear good in theory but in practice suffer from serious deficiencies – as was pointed out by the rapporteur himself, whose work I admire. In fact, the approach seems schizophrenic not only at a logistical level but also because of the inadequate financial cover.
Commissioner, what results have the information monitoring centre, the solidarity fund and the Community mechanism achieved in terms of risk forecasting and prevention, rather than of emergency and post-emergency management? What qualitative results have they had on European Union territory? Can we find out what their effect has been? Can we have a detailed report? Will people understand that a disaster may not always coincide with the borders of an individual state, thus becoming a supranational problem, as the oil slick from the
demonstrated? How can civil protection capabilities in Europe be allowed to remain fragmented among the areas of responsibility of the environment, health, territory, agriculture and internal affairs?
A European civil protection agency needs to be set up, something I asked the Commission to do two years ago. Apart from the fact that an operational structure can undoubtedly increase involvement, especially in Member States that are less sensitive to the problem, such a solution would have the advantage of operating above the territorial level to develop and harmonise procedures and methods for analysing and mitigating the risk of natural and technological disasters, and it would establish a proper task force.
In conclusion, I believe we need to promote the action of civil protection volunteers and to support it with structured training, equipment and funds, so that it can become an essential resource for dealing with emergencies and natural and other disasters. I hope that the Commission will find the strength, the will and the courage to work with Parliament in this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples