MEPs consider that the European Union is not sufficiently equipped to deal with natural disasters, the frequency and scale of which are increasing with global warming, and called for a strengthening of the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, with some even suggesting the creation of a new fund, in an exchange with the European Commission on Tuesday 14 September.
Thus, the chair of the European Parliament’s Regional Development Committee (REGI), Younous Omarjee (The Left, France) - who also put the debate on the agenda - recalled the importance of reviewing the EUSF’s allocation, which is running out of cash by 2021, and the EU’s overall strategy for adapting to climate change. On this occasion, he reiterated his call for a climate change adaptation fund for the regions (see EUROPE 12787/11).
This diagnosis has been made by many MEPs. However, the need for a new fund was less frequently echoed by other MEPs: it was mentioned only half-heartedly by Pascal Arimont (EPP, Belgium), who was speaking for his group, and by Greek MEP Nikos Androulakis (S&D).
On the other hand, many, such as Raffaele Fitto (ECR, Italy), Andrey Novakov (EPP, Bulgaria) and Rosa D’amato (Greens/EFA, Italy), called for a consolidation of the EUSF, both in terms of the overall volume of the budget and the implementation procedures, which were considered complex and slow. Mrs D’Amato suggested that pre-financing for the EUSF should be increased by 30%.
The Commissioner for Cohesion Policy and Reform, Elisa Ferreira, was cautious. While recognising the increasing use of EUSF funds as the frequency and scale of natural disasters increases, she preferred first and foremost to “consider all possible options within (the) instruments to enable the Solidarity Fund to continue to provide European assistance”.
The Commissioner did not endorse Mr Omarjee’s proposal in the long term. She pointed out that instruments already existed in the cohesion policy programmes as early as 2014, and that they had already been used by Member States to prevent floods, forest fires and landslides. In her eyes, more needs to be done within the current programming of cohesion policy and in the Recovery Plan.
National gaps in civil protection
The Civil Protection Mechanism is one of the European ‘active solidarity’ tools that Elisa Ferreira recalled could be mobilised quickly this summer. Sixteen Member States provided essential assistance to the most affected countries. Not to mention the Copernicus programme, which, through its satellite maps of the damage, was able to “guide the relief effort”.
For the future, she stressed the need for Member States to invest heavily in “long-term prevention” and crisis management (see EUROPE 12788/16).
Several MEPs, including Mr Arimont, praised the EU’s civil protection mechanism, which had seen “rescue vehicles and helicopters from neighbouring countries arrive within hours”.
But shortcomings in the Member States were also pointed out.
RescEU, the civil protection mechanism’s strategic equipment reserve, “is simply recycling the lack of resources of each of the Member States”, according to Giórgos Georgíou (The Left, Cyprus), who said that “the reaction was not immediate in Cyprus”, where “the aid arrived once the fire was under control”. His compatriot Leftéris Christofórou (EPP) said Cyprus was offering its territory for a fire control intervention unit in Europe.
According to Níkos Androulákis, the way forward is to buy fire-fighting airplanes, to emphasise prevention so that countries are better prepared, and to strengthen civil protection plans.
While most MEPs stressed that the increase in extreme weather events this summer was “proof that climate change is at work in Europe”, Silvia Limmer (ID) denounced this as “propaganda”, stressing that “sealed urban areas are not the climate’s fault”. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens and Aminata Niang)