EP - MEPs support aid to tsunami-hit countries

Council and Commission statements - EU aid for tidal wave victims in Asia
Debate : 12.01.2005

Representing the Council Presidency, Jean ASSELBORN, Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, opened the debate on the earthquake and tsunami in Asia. He said this had been an unprecedented disaster, causing at least 160 000 deaths, not counting the many who were still missing and the millions displaced or made homeless. He said the Luxembourg presidency had responded immediately - as well as sending representatives to the region, there had been immediate contacts with the UN and a special meeting of the General Affairs Council on 7 January.

This last meeting had reaffirmed the EU's solidarity with the region and thanked the people of the affected countries for the help they had offered European citizens who were present. Mr. Asselborn stressed the importance of the UN's co-ordinating role in managing emergency aid. He stated that it was important that EU assistance should not be at the expense of other development spending priorities. The Council had also discussed plans for the future: for an early warning mechanism and prevention strategy, and for the development of a rapid reaction force, an increased EU role in co-ordinating aid structures and the strengthening of consular help. They has also examined the options for debt servicing issues. On 31 January, the Council would meet again to take these ideas forward into an action plan for the future.

Commission President José Manuel BARROSO's intervention is summarised below.

"The first support package was announced on the day that the tsunami struck and we have now committed through ECHO €23m. However, as Kofi Annan has underlined, a billion US dollars will be needed immediately. In answer to this, I propose, as part of the pledge that a further €100m is allocated from the emergency reserve to assist in this effort. I understand your committees have been discussing this proposal favourably.

In this regard, I fully support the Parliament's approach of underlining the co-ordination role of the UN.

On the reconstruction side, I propose that €350m is made available. I had envisioned that part of this would come from fresh funds and part from a reprogramming of funds already planned for the affected countries. Although the reconstruction task will take up several years, the financing of this reconstruction effort should be provided in this and next year.

I understand the reprogramming part of my proposal has caused some concern in Parliament. So why am I proposing this? The main reason is speed - the funds for projects planned for 2005 are already on the table and can be used for the urgent immediate reconstruction work. Waiting for fresh funds to come on stream will take up to six months - we need to move with reconstruction funds now. All donors are responding in the same way - including the World Bank - to leverage funds for tsunami as fast as possible.

I also do not believe this approach will have any negative side effects. Will this lead to a cancellation of already planned projects? No - if governments decide with us that a tsunami related project takes immediate priority, the originally planned project can be taken up in 2006 or 2007, under the new financial perspective.

Will this lead to Asia robbing other regions of their funds? No. Any projects that would be reprioritised and delayed in this way will be within the Asia envelope which, if necessary, will need to be readapted and I count on your support in this regard. Quoting from a draft resolution I have seen from Parliament, I can assure you that "the poor across the world will not pay the price of this disaster."

In Indonesia, the Commission has a €35m programme which aims to improve access and quality of health care at the community level. If government agrees, this can be extended quickly to help rebuild and strengthen health care facilities damaged by the tsunami. Alternatively, in Sri Lanka, we are planning to co-operate with the World Bank on a housing programme to help resettlement of internally displaced persons. Similarly, this could be broadened quickly to help rehouse families displaced by the tsunami.

Whatever the level of new funding, I stress that the Commission needs to look at how planned projects can be reprogrammed in this way to ensure that we can respond on reconstruction within the critical first months.

But the Commission's pledge was provisional and could be revisited once final costings are in. We already know needs are huge and there could be room even for a higher contribution of fresh funds if both Parliament and Council would agree to it.

The Commission will need to also address punctual and particular projects that will be better delivered by direct implementation rather than passing through the national budgets. For example, there may be some specific work that is started in the humanitarian phase that can be usefully continued under the initial reconstruction phase. Alternatively, there may be specific conditions that prevent easy access for the national budget to certain geographic regions or indeed to the poorest communities who must benefit from this tsunami reconstruction. Such cases would also warrant the continued channelling of a part of our funds through NGOs.

In every successful emergency programme organised by the Commission, the Parliament has played a pivotal role. In this regard, I think of Afghanistan or the Balkans. And this role is not simply to agree on funding but to follow the programme and to lend political weight when needed to ensure the programme's political goals remain on track.

I recognise the importance placed by Parliament on additional measures beyond aid that the EU can provide to further help the countries affected by the tsunami. You can rest assured that all Commission departments are mobilised to investigate in their particular areas what can be done in this regard. This includes support to G8 debt moratorium initiatives, investigation of possible trade initiatives ease trade access to the Union for the countries' concerned and work with the governments in seeking to facilitate the implementation of the European Investment Bank's "Indian Ocean Tsunami Facility". The Member States and Commission agreed in the General Affairs Council to offer direct support to the countries in their efforts to develop early warning systems so they will be better able to respond to future natural disasters.

The Commission is also considering proposals for a new EU approach to reinforce capacity for disaster prevention. I welcome proposals for the development of a rapid response humanitarian capacity for the European Union which would permit it to enhance its assistance in future disasters and humanitarian crises.

I noted with interest the ideas being floated on the possibility of supplying fishing vessels from decommissioned EU fleets to the fishing communities in the affected countries. The idea is very appealing - we have all seen pictures of boats wrecked by the tsunami and our own fishing industry is about to destroy boats from its own fleet in line with fishery limits. My services are currently exploring whether vessels are available, what state of repair they are in and, if they meet the needs of the fishing communities in the tsunami affected areas, how they could be made available to fishermen in the tsunami affected areas. I hope that this initiative will work and will report back to you with the results of our work.

Last, but not least, we must recognise the political dimension of the tsunami crisis on the political problems in Aceh and in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The international community must impress on the players involved that the tsunami crisis must not lead to a drift back towards conflict but that instead it is recognised as an opportunity to reinvigorate the search for peaceful and long term solutions to these problems. In doing that, we will of course pay due attention to the sensitivities of the two countries concerned. "

Political Group interventions

Nirj DEVA (UK), for the EPP-ED group, reported that he had just returned from Sri Lanka and he expressed his gratitude to all those who had donated aid. Aid from EU countries, he said, now was close to €1.5bn and rising. He welcomed the initial €23m released by the EU and the further €350m promised. Mr Deva also welcomed the possibility of setting up a €1bn lending facility from the European Investment Bank. He also welcomed the "hands on" approach of EU Development Commissioner Louis MICHEL. Mr. Deva stressed the importance of "aid not being stolen" and ensuring accountable and transparent delivery mechanisms. The need to end conflicts both in Aceh and Sri Lanka was highlighted by Mr. Deva. He called for "a hand up and not merely a hand out."

Martin SCHULZ (DE), for the PES group, stated that he had agreed with much of the discourse on the aftermath of the Tsunami from all EU institutions. The tragedy underlined, he said, the "global village nature of the world" and the need for solidarity at a supranational level. This is why the EU's contribution was particularly important. He welcomed the reconstruction proposals from the Commission. The most striking piece of news he had heard in recent days, he said, was the fact that the citizens of Beslan had raised 1 million rubles (€30 000) for the victims of the tragedy in Asia. This, he said, showed the remarkable solidarity between peoples.

Graham WATSON (UK), for the ALDE group, also underlined that the "global tragedy required a global response." He stated that it would be a challenge for the United Nations. He welcomed the initial EU response and the generous private and public aid. He stressed the importance of pledges being fulfilled and cited that only 2 per cent of the money pledged after the earthquake in Bam in Iran had been spent. In the future, the EU should be able to send infrastructure following major disasters including floating hospitals. Mr. Watson pointed out that the stricken countries would pay more in trade tariffs in one year then they would receive in aid. He also stressed that existing technology could save many lives if it were available in all nations.

Daniel COHN-BENDIT (DE), for the Greens/EFA group, stated that it was difficult to debate after such a tragedy. He supported the Council and Commission proposals to increase the EU's civil intervention capacity. National governments alone were not in a position to cope with the tragedy. He stressed the importance of conflict prevention and stated that the EU would have to intervene both in the Aceh and Sri Lanka conflicts as well as providing aid and assistance.

Speaking for the GUE/NGL group, Vittorio Emanuele AGNOLETTO (IT) expressed concern that after the first few weeks had passed, there was a risk of cynical manipulation. He said there should be no 'reprogramming': all the €350m of immediate support should be new money and there should be no strings attached to longer term funding. Foreign debt for the affected countries should be written off, he said. He also called for at least a temporary relaxation of immigration rules.

Georgios KARATZAFERIS (EL) spoke for the Independence and Democracy group. He asked how it would be possible to avoid intermediaries taking a cut of aid money. We should, he said, bear in mind that the effects of the tsunami had been something like a nuclear holocaust in the worst affected places. He said the disaster showed it was wrong to shift EU funding from basic research to space research, when the former was the best way to address the risk of future such catastrophes.

Sebastiano MUSUMECI (IT), for the UEN group, said it was vital for the EU to have a civil protection unit, to prevent the spectacle of the EU impotently standing by while the disaster affected areas asked for support. This would be the best way to structure future aid to deal with natural disasters.

The non-aligned MEP Ryszard CZARNECK (PL) said that in response to the disaster the citizens of Europe wanted honesty not empty speechifying. He questioned whether United States support was more about polishing its image and re-establishing influence in the region than about help for the victims. It was time to show solidarity and speedily send aid - slow, bureaucratic responses should be avoided.

Other speakers

Neena GILL (PES, UK)) said 26 December would never be the same again. The disaster had shown we all had a shared fate in the global theatre of environmental risk. She said she had been moved by the heartfelt global response to the events. Having travelled to South India to see relief operations at first hand, she praised the EU's immediate response and also the selfless decision of the Indian government to say that aid should go as a priority to the worst affected countries. In the longer run, however, it was vital that support for India should not be reduced to release funds for reconstruction elsewhere.

Eoin RYAN (UEN, IE) welcomed the "extraordinary response" of governments and people around the world. He called for military and civil resources to be made available in the future as the US had already done. He also insisted that financial support should be new resources and not taken from existing budgets.

John BOWIS (EPP-ED, UK) stated that "on 26 December, the earth moved, and tragedy struck". Mr. Bowis expressed his concern for the plight of the many orphans. The general public was the first to move, he said, and shamed governments into matching their generous contributions. He called for lasting effective action including reform of the debt system. Mr. Bowis also called for the development of an early warning system, a technology, he said, that was already available in laboratories in Vienna. He also insisted on a fairer trading system between North and South.

Glenys KINNOCK (PES, UK) was concerned "that money was being moved from one need to another, perhaps from Africa to Aceh". The resources, she said, had to be new additional money. The money should not be taken away from fighting preventable diseases such as malaria. She called for the ACP to have their own disaster emergency faculty and was particularly concerned for the Seychelles and Somalia since EDF money might not be available for these countries.

Gay MITCHELL (EPP-ED, IE) stated that the world was shocked by the tsunami. He stated that the EU's reaction only served to demonstrate the EU's inability to react compared to the USA. There was, he said, a clear need for an EU Foreign Minister. Senior EU leaders, he said, had not been visible in the region. He also stressed the risk of taking donor aid for granted once media attention had died down. The 0.7 per cent target of GNP to be allocated to developing countries should be met, he stated, by all EU countries and legislation should be brought in to ensure this. He also insisted that financial commitment and pledges should be actually spent, which had not been the case in the past.

Response to the debate

Responding to the debate for the Council, Nicolas SCHMIT, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration of Luxembourg, thanked all those who had taken part. While the Council was sensitive to criticisms, he said, it was clear that the EU had not been passive or inactive. There had been a fast response at all levels.

He promised the Council would continue to work closely with Parliament on this matter. He pointed to Wednesday morning's 'trialogue' agreement to release a €100m tranche of aid as an example. The decisions taken by the Council on 7 January would be followed up and all further measures which proved necessary would be taken, he said.

On specific points raised, he agreed on the need to strengthen EU aid coordination mechanisms and looked forward to the Commission's proposals on this at the next General Affairs Council meeting. He stated that support for children at risk was vital, and that work was going on in cooperation with UNICEF and various NGOs on this matter. He argued that internal conflicts in at least two of the affected countries should, at a minimum be prevented from disrupting aid delivery. The Council, he said, would closely monitor the implementation of financial commitments and there was a meeting taking place the same day on debt relief. His own view was that this should be granted to those affected countries which requested it. Finally, he stressed the importance of investing more in alert and disaster prevention mechanisms.

In his response to the debate Commissioner Janez POTOČNIK stated that the response to the disaster would be worked out in close co-operation with the European Parliament. A series of proposals would be made in the short, mid and long-term. The Commission had already released a further €100 million from the emergency reserve. A further €350 million would be available for reconstruction, some of which would be fresh funds, and some resources from programmed funds. A number of flanking measures were required particularly in the areas of debt relief, trade tariffs, immigration, health and the setting up of an early warning system. The Commission, he said, foresaw the possibility of accelerating the revised General System of Preferences in order to benefit trade from the stricken countries.

| Top |

• EP - Fishing boats for tsunami victims (26/1/2005)
• EP - Tsunami aid - pledged money must be spent (13/1/2005)