The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted the report by Elisabetta GARDINI (EPP, IT) on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM).
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, exercising its prerogatives as associated committee in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report.
The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as follows.
Specific objectives: Members specified that the Union mechanism should also support, complement and facilitate the coordination of Member States' action to achieve the following specific objectives:
In order to carry out preventive actions, the Commission should coordinate the harmonisation of information and guidance on alert systems, including on a cross-border level.
Members considered that European civil protection capabilities should be accompanied by an increased commitment on the part of Member States in the field of prevention.
Risk management: the Commission may require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans which shall cover both short- and long-term efforts. In this regard, these efforts may include a commitment on the part of Member States to encourage investments based on risk assessments and to ensure better post-disaster reconstruction. The additional administrative burden at national and sub-national levels shall be kept as low as possible.
Furthermore, the Commission should be able to take appropriate measures if it considers that the prevention efforts of a Member State are insufficient in the light of the risks facing the Member State in question.
European Civil Protection Pool: this shall consist of a reserve of a voluntary pool of pre-committed capacities of the Member States and include modules, other response capacities and experts.
Special reserve of response capacities (‘rescEU’): rescEU shall be established to provide relief in exceptional circumstances when capacities at national level are not available and where existing capacities do not allow responding effectively to disasters. RescEU capacities shall not be used to replace Member States' own capacities and relevant responsibilities.
The composition of rescEU shall consist of capacities additional to those that already exist in the Member States, with a view to supplementing and strengthening them, and shall seek to address current and future risks. The capacities are to be identified on the basis of any gaps in response capacities related to health emergencies, industrial, environmental, seismic or volcanic disasters, floods and fires including forest fires, as well as terrorist attacks and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats.
The nature of these capacities shall remain flexible and may change in order to address new developments and future challenges, such as the consequences of climate change.
In order to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and monitoring of the process and to detect possible changes with budgetary implications as soon as possible, it is proposed that Parliament and the Council receive annually updated information on the progress of the Civil Protection Mechanism.
Erasmus: Members proposed setting up an ‘Erasmus Civil Protection Mechanism’ to strengthen existing cooperation between Member States. This programme shall include an international dimension aimed at supporting the Union’s external action, including its development goals, through cooperation between Member States and between partner countries.
Budget: Members want to ensure separate funding and budgetary allocations for the revised EU mechanism.
In order to avoid any negative impact on the financing of existing multiannual programmes, the increase in financing for the targeted revision of the Union Mechanism in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 should be drawn exclusively from all means available under the MFF Regulation, with particular recourse to the Flexibility Instrument.
Members set out in detail the additional funding needed for the revision of the UCPM for the period 2018-2020 in the decision itself, by means of a detailed and separate Annex I.