Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-183"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.21.1-183"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, over recent years we have experienced a tsunami, hurricane Katrina and earthquakes in Pakistan and Indonesia with high death tolls, while in the European Union the Member States have frequently faced major floods and storms, forest fires, disasters at sea and industrial accidents. The repercussions of these tragic events are huge not only in terms of human lives, but also to the economy. That is why the citizens of the European Union are rightly calling for a more effective approach.
The price of the lack of a unified and effective Europe when it comes to crisis management is very high, which is why we need to proceed more effectively and with greater coordination.
Improving the European Union's ability to respond to emergency situations is a priority for the European Parliament. That is why we are today debating ways of improving the Community civil protection mechanism.
During the preparation of the committee proposal we are debating, various alternative proposals were examined. One of them was recast, which the Commission chose and which is the least ambitious choice, because it introduces a limited number of improvements to the Council decision governing the civil protection mechanism. Could the Commission therefore tell me how it arrived at this choice, the least ambitious choice, despite the repeated announcements by the European Council and the resolutions by the European Parliament on greater and stronger development of the Community civil protection mechanism?
The main weaknesses identified in the recast proposal tabled by the Commission relate, firstly, to the transportation of rescue teams and equipment. Today every Member State bears responsibility for organising the transportation of its own civil protection aid. However, this shortcoming undermines the effectiveness of European aid. In 2005 alone, in five emergencies, Member States were unable to send experts and equipment, because they did not have the means to transport aid where it was needed. I think that the Commission needs to do more to address this problem.
The second weakness relates to the development of a European rapid response capability. Today, Community civil protection aid is provided by the Member States on a voluntary basis. This does not add up to the European rapid response capability demanded by the European Parliament. In its communication on 25 April, the Commission proposed the creation of special standby modules which would be mobilised on request by the competent European authority. I ask you, why did the Commission not include its own proposal in the recast?
The third problem relates to early warning. The ability of the European Commission to respond to natural disasters also depends upon the existence of early warning systems. The recast states that the Monitoring and Information Centre in Brussels should be linked to the systems of the Member States and international organisations. That is good, but it is not enough because, immediately after the earthquake caused by the tsunami, the governments learned, but the citizens never learned. That is why a suitable legal basis must be set up within the framework of the Council decision, so that early warning systems can be developed within the framework of the mechanism.
The fourth weakness concerns the coordination of interventions in third countries. In this sector also more work needs to be done, because there is a blatant lack of coordination. Some Member States work constantly through the Community mechanism, some Member States prefer to work with the United Nations, some Member States work with both and some Member States with neither. This fragmentation and lack of coordination completely contradict the ambitious announcements by the European Council.
As rapporteur, together with the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups, we tabled amendments which were approved almost unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. In brief, they relate to information for citizens, to the integration of civil protection measures in education programmes and advertising campaigns, to land management and use, in order to strengthen prevention, to the definitions of terms based on the agreed international terminology, to the inclusion of public health and to the use of military means on an auxiliary and voluntary basis.
Finally, I should like to mention the Barnier report on the creation of Europe Aid. In January 2006, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council asked Michel Barnier to examine the role of the European Union in dealing with crises. It turned out to be a very detailed report with interesting proposals. Unfortunately, however, both the Commission and the Council simply welcomed the report as an important contribution and did nothing about it. I should like the Commissioner to tell me how the Commission intends to make use of the Barnier report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples