On Thursday 31 May, the European Parliament in Strasbourg voted to upgrade the EU’s civil protection capacity in order to save lives. Parliament said the mechanism was tested to its limits to provide an effective and swift collective response to the increasing number of disasters (sometimes cross-border and simultaneous) which claimed 200 lives in Europe last year.
Voting by 431 to 99 with 97 abstentions, Parliament backed the proposal to create RescUE, a European reserve of means (forest fire-fighting planes, high-capacity pumps, field hospitals and emergency medical teams) to help member states confront natural and man-made disasters more effectively in full respect of subsidiarity, as it had supported strengthening of the prevention chapter of the proposal presented in November by the European Commission (see EUROPE 11911).
RescUE would be able to buy or lease its own equipment, in addition to that lent by member states. It would support the member states when their own capacities are used to a maximum, but must not replace those capacities, MEPs say. In their view, member states should take adequate preventive measures to preserve sufficient national capacity to effectively manage disasters.
A mandate was given to the rapporteur, Elisabetta Gardini (EPP, Italy), to refer the text back to the environment committee in order to begin interinstitutional negotiations with a view to an agreement.
“We really have to put an end to tragedies like those we saw last year in Portugal where 100 people lost their lives”, said Gardini, saying solidarity lies at the core of the proposal.
The amendments voted through, including those of the environment committee taken as a whole, aim in particular to rationalise the administrative measures to reduce red tape, stress the importance of the role of local authorities in the management of disasters and underline that the future civil protection mechanism will strengthen cooperation between the EU, the member states and also the regions.
It is essential to prepare the map of risks per region and/or per member state and to strengthen the readiness capacity and prevention measures, by placing emphasis on climate risks, the resolution states.
Parliament also voted in favour of mentioning terrorist attacks as disasters, calling for greater flexibility in the use of all EU instruments and ensuring that the additional resources required for funding RescUE (some €280 million) will indeed be additional and not taken from the budget for other policies.
It was also suggested that the equivalent of an Erasmus programme should be set up to promote cooperation between civil protection personnel, but this is not to everyone’s liking. Michaela Sojdrova (EPP, Czech Republic), for example, said she did not agree on Erasmus + being used to ends other than for youth education.
During the debate the day before the vote, European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management Christos Stylanides, who is doing a tour of the capital cities to explain the RescuUE project, had underlined that the proposal on the table was “not a revolution but evolution” to help member states. He had underlined the role of Commission coordination and pointed out that the member states affected were to manage operations on their territory. He went on to reassure member states that the European Commission would “do everything” to help find an interinstitutional agreement as swiftly as possible.
Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), although expressing his group’s support, had warned: “countries like mine will find it hard to agree to the text covering terrorist attacks instead of being limited to natural disasters”. Gardini replied that the text strictly took on board the scope of the EU civil protection system, in line with decision 1313/2013. It is that decision which must now be amended to improve the effectiveness of the European response. A working group will be set in place by the Bulgarian presidency working assiduously to seek to reach agreement between member states.
The GUE/NGL group expressed disappointment that the amendments aimed at mentioning climate refugees had been rejected. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)