WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/00

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Emergency aid and relief programmes for flood-struck Mozambique

More than six months have passed since massive floodings struck Mozambique and it is time to make an assessment of the aid provided by the European Union to date.

1. How does the Commission assess the cooperation with international organisations and NGOs through which aid projects are being carried out in Mozambique? What needs to be improved?

2. Has the experience of the natural disaster in Mozambique led the Commission to revise or improve its cooperation with the Member States in emergency situations? For example, has the Commission now taken measures to improve the practical cooperation with EU Member States with regard to the transportation and distribution of emergency assistance products? Is there an agreed framework with the Member States on, for instance, the assistance of an army/navy of an EU Member State based in the proximity of a disaster area in respect of transportation or eventual evacuation activities?

3. In the direct aftermath of the floodings in Mozambique international aid, including European aid, was much criticised for having come about too slowly (with the exception of the aid provided by the neighbouring country of South Africa). Does the Commission intend taking measures in order to improve action by the EU in situations similar to the one in Mozambique? If so, what are those measures?

4. Could the Commission provide a report on the structural reform of the Commission delegation in Maputo, as announced in July 1999?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

1. The Commission's response to the flood situation in Mozambique in 2000 reflects a high level of co-operation with international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This included excellent co-ordination with the United Nations (UN) Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and with the Mozambique government's National Disaster Management Institute (INGC) in Maputo. It involved careful partner selection by the Commission in collaboration with its Delegation in Mozambique in the early stages of the flood response, using only partners with a long-term presence in Mozambique and a proven capacity to implement relief programmes. This was facilitated by the immediate deployment of an ECHO expert to Mozambique for field-based strategic programming and project appraisal, implementation monitoring & evaluation. The Commission strategy envisaged a phasing out of emergency relief after nine months, working towards ECHO's withdrawal by the end of 2000 and DG Development's pursuit of longer-term rehabilitation projects from 2001.

The above approach has produced excellent results, as observed by several Members of the European Parliament during recent visits to Mozambique.

2. The large-scale aid response to the Mozambique disaster involved four phases. The first consisted of Search and Rescue, occurring during the first week. The second was the Relief phase, during the first six months. The third was Resettlement, from the second to ninth months, whilst the fourth phase of Rehabilitation lasts from the sixth to the eighteenth month. Development aid is, of course, ongoing. Concerning the first phase, Search and Rescue activities can only be carried out by immediately available capacity. In Mozambique, this meant South African helicopters, which coped admirably. It is impossible to make such capacity available from overseas in time to make a difference. Concerning the second phase, logistical capacity for Relief was more than adequate, and nobody died from lack of aid. The resettlement and rehabilitation aid (the third and fourth phases) are progressing well, ensuring that flood victims are rehoused in safer areas, with clean water supplies, assistance with re-establishing crop and livestock production, plus adequate health protection.

In conclusion, the Commission's prompt and effective response to the natural disaster in Mozambique did not give rise to a need for improved co-operation in emergency situations. Close co-ordination was organised by the authorities in Mozambique, assisted by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. All Member States and international NGOs participated in this co-ordination. In addition to this, numerous meetings were held on a daily basis, between the Commission and Member States' representatives, at the level of Ambassador or Head of Delegation, in view of the scale of the disaster.

3. There were three stages to the Mozambique disaster, which began with the heavy rains in early February 2000 in Maputo, and continued with Cyclone Eline on 21 and 22 February 2000 in the provinces of Sofala and Inhambane. Finally, on 25 February 2000 the floodgates of major dams on the Limpopo, Save and Buzi rivers were opened to relieve the pressure, provoking widespread flooding and displacement. The Commission was in constant touch with its Delegation in Maputo from the start, and appropriate funding was made available from 6 February 2000. However, the situation only became critical from the third stage. Within forty-eight hours of its onset (on 27 February 2000), a senior field expert was present at the scene of the disaster, having been dispatched immediately from ECHO's regional support office in Nairobi. This timeframe compares favourably with the response of other donors, such as the US Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance, whose Disaster Assistance Response Team only arrived on 4 March 2000.

All interim evaluations and external observations concur that the Commission's response in Mozambique was timely, appropriate and cost-effective and, thus should serve as an example.

4. The Commission has been allocating resources for delegations in third countries according to approved plans, which take into account specific local needs. The Commission is unable to identify the specific reform to which the Honourable Member refers.