Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.6.2-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, we were all both concerned and moved by the extent of the flooding that so badly affected Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia a few weeks ago. On 18 August, in the company of President Prodi and my colleagues Mrs Schreyer and Mr Verheugen, who are here today, I was able to see for myself the scale of this disaster in the region of Dresden in particular. President Prodi and Mrs Wallström went with Mr Verheugen to Prague, and Mr Fischler was also able to observe the extent of the damage in his own country.
The existing instruments, of course, include the Structural Funds for the Member States affected and the pre-accession instruments for the candidate countries. For eligible areas and regions, Structural Fund credits may be reallocated among the various priorities of the regional programmes, and we are prepared to increase the cofinancing rates as much as possible. Meetings will be held over the next few days with the national and regional authorities to specify the amounts that can be reallocated according to requests from the Member States. We shall be as flexible as the regulations allow, in particular with regard to State aid. I would also like to confirm that the disaster areas will not be penalised by the application of the N+2 clause if, due to the floods, the credits are not used within the period stipulated by the regulations.
Here again, however, the instruments available to us have their limits. The Structural Funds cannot be used outside the eligible areas. Although most of the disaster areas in Germany can benefit from these Funds under objective 1, this is not the case in Austria. Furthermore, these instruments are governed by provisions with which you are familiar, which do not always allow the necessary aid to be quickly released.
That, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Commission proposes the creation of a disaster fund for the regions and States in case of a major natural disaster. I would emphasise that this solidarity fund will be available to benefit both current and future Member States. We considered it preferable to call upon a new, flexible instrument that could mobilise at least EUR 500 million in 2002, and EUR 1000 million in future, which would be added to the Fund in case of a disaster. The aim of this Fund would be, on the one hand, to help normal public life to resume, for example by repairing energy, transport and telecommunications networks, rebuilding or building temporary accommodation, and, on the other, to limit damage by consolidating preventative infrastructures, for example dikes and dams.
As you can see, this proposal is, therefore, different. Both in the amounts in question and the type of interventions envisaged, it differs from the emergency victim aid system that existed between 1977 and 1996. I believe, however, that this Commission proposal fulfils the wishes I have heard here myself, in this very Chamber, over the past three years, for example following the disasters that affected Greece, the Azores, the Canaries, France and the United Kingdom. In a few days, on 18 September, we would like to adopt a proposal for a regulation specifying the conditions and implementation methods for this disaster fund. This tight deadline shows the Commission’s determination to act swiftly, just as you yourself, Mr Cox, clearly expressed your desire to act.
On behalf of the Commission and my colleagues here present, I would therefore like to thank the Committee on Budgets, its Chairman, Mr Wynn, your rapporteurs Mr Colom i Naval, Mr Podestà and Mr Färm, for the quality and speed of their cooperation. This support and understanding are essential as our joint objective is to make this fund operational in the next few months. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs, as you said, Minister, reacted positively to this proposal at Elsinore.
In conclusion, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say once again that prevention is always more effective and less expensive than repair. Sometimes, however, as is the case at the moment, urgency is paramount and it is important for the European Union to be able to provide help and practical solidarity to the affected communities and regions of Germany, Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This shows that European solidarity, in conjunction with local, regional and national solidarity, is far more than just words. For the past fifteen years it has been the basis for cohesion policy. It has a purpose. And today, we are showing that this purpose is being confirmed, pursued and even consolidated.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, first of all, I would like to offer my deepest sympathy to all the families affected, but I also wish to recognise in particular the civil defence forces, the thousands of volunteers we saw, and the local, regional and national political and civil leaders who have shown such admirable dedication in this situation.
On 28 August, the Commission announced a series of initiatives under the various Community policies to help the countries and regions concerned to cope with this disaster. Not only has the Union shown its solidarity with the communities concerned, but it also intends to demonstrate its capacity to act and react quickly. Mr President, all the Commissioners present were particularly affected by the proposals you made at the beginning of this part-session, and by Mr Haarder’s speech a few moments ago. I would like to point out, with regard to natural risks, that two subjects always go hand-in-hand, prevention and repair. Allow me, first of all, to say a word or two about prevention.
I know that prevention requires both funding and political courage. For example, the desire to control land use planning, to avoid waterproofing excessively large areas, in short, to manage rather than to develop land use planning. I also know, however, that prevention always costs less than having to repair the damage. At Community level, it is clear that the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds act as a financial lever for prevention. Allow me to give just one example. Many countries were affected by the Rhine and Meuse floods during the first half of the 1990s. We then mobilised over EUR 140 million under the Interreg programme, and that money made it possible to develop flood-monitoring and warning systems, and identify risk areas, build flood control reservoirs and facilitate water run-off.
For the current period, 2000-2006, many programmes also contain risk prevention actions. This, for example, is the case of the objective 1 programme for Brandenburg, which lays down the construction of flood protection. More than forty projects will be implemented within a budget of EUR 230 million. This, for example, is also the case for the Austrian Tyrol. Following the Galtur disaster of February 1999, in which 31 people lost their lives, almost EUR 10 million are to be allocated to an avalanche prevention measure.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that these efforts, in their current form, are not equal to the risks we face. Together with you, we have held discussions on the future of regional policy after 2006. When the time comes, I shall propose that natural, technological and environmental risk prevention should become a high, almost inevitable priority of future regional policy programmes after 2006. We can see that the frequency of these disasters is increasing, even if they are not all such serious ones. Furthermore, regions such as Germany, which, with the support of the Structural Funds, have made considerable efforts to boost their economy after reunification, to restore towns and villages, have now seen their work wiped out in a few short hours.
That is why regional development cannot take place without natural, technological or environmental risk prevention. The Commission, mainly on the initiative of Mrs Wallström, will propose a European risk prevention strategy by the end of this year.
To conclude this point, I would like to say that it is quite appropriate that we are discussing this subject at the moment, today, while the Heads of State and Government are meeting in Johannesburg. It is plain that our planet needs global thinking and collective courage, as advocated by the Brundtland report at the end of the 1980s, before the Rio Summit. It is also clear that global thinking, either at world level or at European level, must be implemented in practical and local terms, in the field. That is the ecological challenge, the sustainable development-meets-regional policy challenge to which we have the obligation to respond.
Mr President, I am now going to talk about the urgent need to rebuild, to prove swiftly our solidarity with the German and Austrian Länder, but also with the Czech and Slovak regions that have suffered damage. First of all, we need to mobilise all the instruments already available to us to address this challenge. That was the commitment given by the Commission on 28 August, a commitment that led immediately to decisions in the first area, the agriculture sector, under the impetus of Mr Fischler."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples