Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-10-Speech-4-038-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110310.4.4-038-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, two years has passed since the Commission launched a communication in February 2009 on a Community approach to the prevention of natural and man-made disasters. The importance of this issue was outlined. Since then, various disasters have hit Europe and have had severely negative consequences for the public, the land, the economy and the environment.
What has the Commission already done, or what is it going to do, for this review? I recall that a year ago, Madeira was struck by a major disaster which resulted in fatalities and high levels of material damage to strategic infrastructures and basic equipment. It is now one year later, and Madeira has still not received a single cent of aid at all from the EU. What will the Commission do to change this situation, when the regulation of the Solidarity Fund currently says that ‘it should help to quickly restore normal living conditions, and it should act swiftly and efficiently to help, as quickly as possible, in mobilising emergency services’? Where is this speed when, one year later, Madeira has still not received a single cent in aid from the EU?
To conclude, Mr President, once again I urge the Commission to take the broad consensus that this report attracted, when it was voted upon and discussed, as a clear sign that these recommendations, the recommendations contained in this report, are to be put into practice. Many of these recommendations were already contained in previous Parliament resolutions, but unfortunately nothing was done and the Commission bears particular responsibility for this delay.
In general terms, the Commission’s communication followed a proper approach, albeit an inadequate one, as was considered by Parliament. In addition, the Commission is delaying in implementing the commitments it assumed in this communication.
One example of this is its commitment to draw up a list of preventative measures to be funded by the European Union and implemented by the Member States. Two years later, and where is this list? Is the Commission going to wait for the next multiannual financial framework before presenting it? Another two years from now?
Meanwhile, in September of last year, Parliament adopted a report on this very matter. This report puts forward a set of important recommendations. It is important to say that this report was preceded by a much wider debate, not only here in Parliament, but also with a wide range of national, regional and local entities, operating in different phases of disaster management.
The report also gathered a lot of experience of these catastrophes with the people who were affected by disasters over the last year. Here, I would like to mention a few of the specific points of the report, from the many that it contains. A range of actions were defined as targets for special support to the Member States, with a view to remedying situations of risk in areas such as forest management, the protection and defence of the coastline, restoring and protecting river basins, the protection and remodelling of populated areas which are particularly vulnerable to certain types of catastrophes and the maintenance of farming activities in the areas affected by depopulation and which are at risk of natural disasters.
How has the Commission included, or how is it thinking of including, these areas in the list of measures to be drawn up? The report also proposes the creation of public agricultural insurance in Europe and the institution of a system of minimum compensation to farmers affected by disasters.
I notice that this is very different from the current possibility that the Member States will subsidise insurance internally, with the CAP Health Check. What is proposed is insurance financed by Community funds on an equal footing as regards protection against disasters, for all farmers, whether they are from the Member States most in need, or whether they are from rich countries.
As we know, disasters are deeply unfair, and they almost always have the greatest effect on those who are least able to protect themselves, be they people or countries. If there is one area in which the tangible expression of EU solidarity and the principle of cohesion must be ensured, it is in the protection of the public, the economy and the environment, in the face of disasters.
I would therefore like to ask here what the Commission is going to do to reduce the existing imbalances between the regions and the Member States in this area, in other words, helping to improve prevention in regions and Member States with a greater exposure to risk and lower economic capacity. Another area covered in the report is strengthening early warning systems in the Member States and establishing connections between the various early warning systems. Which steps have already been taken in this area? Which steps will they take next? Finally, it is worth recalling that following on from prevention, and bearing in mind the experience gained during recent disasters, it is becoming imperative to revise the regulations for the Solidarity Fund to allow for a more flexible and timely mobilisation of this instrument."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples