WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/00 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission. Emergency aid and relief programmes for flood-struck Mozambique.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, Mozambique, aid evaluation, aid to disaster victims, coordination of aid, emergency aid, flood

C 187 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

The draft operational programme (OP) (cid:145)Main roads, ports, urban development 2000-06(cid:146) submitted to the
Commission by the Greek authorities includes:

(cid:129) for line 2: the (cid:145)Sepolia-Thivon(cid:146) extension of 2,8 km comprising three stations and the (cid:145)Dafni-Ilioupolis(cid:146)

extension of 1,1 km comprising one station;

(cid:129) for line 3: the (cid:145)National Defence-Stavros(cid:146) extension of 5,4 km comprising five stations and the

(cid:145)Monastiraki-Egaleo(cid:146) extension of 4,7 km comprising four stations.

Several studies carried out during the period of preparation of this OP showed that these extensions are
the ones which will best serve a major part of the population of the city of Athens, especially in the most
densely populated districts.

This OP should be approved by the Commission at the beginning of 2001 and the last date for payments
regarding the work part-financed is the end of 2008. The Greek Ministry of Public Works may give
priority to construction of the tunnel for the (cid:145)National Defence-Stavros(cid:146) extension, with a reduced number
of stations, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. The complete extension with all the stations
envisaged will, however, have to be completed by the end of 2008.

Moreover, in the future the Greek authorities may undertake the construction of other lines, extensions or
stations on the Athens underground railway, not included in the CSF for 2000-2006.

(2001/C 187 E/027)

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.

How does the Commission assess the cooperation with international organisations and NGOs

1.
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?

Could the Commission provide a report on the structural reform of the Commission delegation in

4.
Maputo, as announced in July 1999?

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/27

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

1.
The Commission(cid:146)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(cid:146)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, imple-
mentation monitoring & evaluation. The Commission strategy envisaged a phasing out of emergency relief
after nine months, working towards ECHO(cid:146)s withdrawal by the end of 2000 and DG Development(cid:146)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(cid:146)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(cid:146) 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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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.