WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. September floods in Malta and town of Qormi.
Date: 2003-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Malta, eligibility criteria, emergency aid, environmental risk prevention, flood

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/807

(2004/C 78 E/0856)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: September floods in Malta and town of Qormi

On 15 September and 18 September 2003, Malta experienced some of the worst floods in its history.
Among the towns worst hit was the town of Qormi, in particular the residents living in district Q009.

This area is a sensitive danger area. The Maltese Government commissioned a ‘Storm Water Plan’ for this
area in 1997. The first phase of this plan, under the direction of Architect Robert Musumeci, was
completed by the end of 1998. The second phase of the plan was never undertaken, despite the fact that,
in November 2001, the Qormi Town Council sent a letter to the Minister, reminding him that, if phase 2
were not completed, people in Qormi would be exposed to the danger of floods.

This risk of floods in the Qormi area was further confirmed in the Central Malta local plan, dated June
2002, map number 70, issued by the ‘Malta Environment and Planning Authority’ (MEPA).

Unfortunately the Government did not heed such warnings.

Since the Maltese Government is applying to the EU Commission for funds from the Solidarity Fund for
the damage caused by the floods of 15 and 18 September, can the Commission ensure that the Qormi
Town Council receives part of this ‘Solidarity Fund’ compensation so that it can be used for the welfare of
the Qormi residents?

Is the Commission aware that the same situation prevails in other parts of Malta such as Birkirkara (cid:1)
Msida, Mosta-Burmarrad, Pwales, for which no plan is in place to address irregular but repeated instances
of flash flooding which will, in future, make applications for Solidarity Fund resources a recurring exercise?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

On 10 November 2003 the Maltese authorities presented to the Commission an application to mobilise
the Solidarity Fund to help finance emergency measures following the disaster caused by the heavy storm
and flooding that hit Malta between 15 and 17 September 2003. The application is currently being
examined by the Commission. The Commission has not taken a decision on a grant yet.

Following Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the
European Union Solidarity Fund (1), grants may be used only for the following categories of emergency
operations:

(cid:1) Immediate restoration to working order of infrastructure and plant in the fields of energy, drinking

water, wastewater, telecommunications, transport, health and education;

(cid:1) Providing temporary accommodation and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the

population concerned;

(cid:1) Immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection of the cultural

heritage;

(cid:1) Immediate cleaning-up of disaster-stricken areas, including natural zones.

Longer term disaster prevention measures are not eligible for Solidarity Fund assistance. This does not
exclude possible funding or co-financing of preventive measures from other sources of Community-
funding if the relevant selection criteria for those sources are fulfilled.

C 78 E/808

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The implementation of a possible grant, in particular the selection of individual operations would lie with
the authorities of Malta and the Commission cannot intervene.

Absence of storm water plans or similar alleged shortcomings have no effect on the eligibility for grants
from the Solidarity Fund. However, in their final report on the implementation of the Solidarity Fund
grant, beneficiary states are obliged to give details on the preventive measures introduced or proposed in
order to limit damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0857)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3392/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Economic monitoring

1. Will the Commission compare its monitoring of Member States’ financial and economic performance
each year, particularly its scrutiny of stability and convergence programmes, with the Article IV
consultations and reports undertaken by the International Monetary Fund?

In particular, will it state: (a) how many trained economists are allocated to report specifically on
2.
each Member State and how that compares with the staffing of IMF country desks, (b) what is the length of
stay and staffing of missions to Member States and (c) what is a typical programme of such a visit,
indicating the seniority and responsibilities of those interviewed?

3. Will the Commission state whether it plans any changes or improvements in the manner of its
monitoring in future?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to the practices and the resources associated to the follow-up of the
economic and financial situation of Member States by the Commission in comparison with the
International Monetary Fund.

The Commission routinely compares the outcome of its monitoring of the economies of Member
1.
States (and Acceding States). In particular, the assessment of stability and convergence programmes, with
the outcome of
the Article IV
consultations. Based on such comparisons, the Commission contributes to coordinating the Union’s
position on Article IV Consultations on Member States and Acceding Countries. This activity includes
(since the start of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)) the Article IV consultations on the euro-area.

the economic surveillance undertaken by the Fund,

specifically,

2.
The number of trained economists in the Commission dedicated to the monitoring of the economic
situation of individual Member States typically ranges from two (for the four largest economies) to one (for
the other Member States). This would compare with a range from three to one in the geographical
departments of the Fund. This number does not include either support staff (secretaries, assistants) or
managerial staff (Heads of Unit and Director for the Commission, Heads of Division, Head of Department
for the Fund).

Concerning the Commission’s missions dedicated to the specific follow-up of the economic situation in
Member States, these include routine mission typically undertaken in connection with the Autumn and
Spring forecasts and the preparation of the Report on the Implementation of the Broad Economic policy
Guidelines, and ad hoc missions, undertaken on specific policy occasions (for example, in preparation of
possible steps to be taken in the framework of the Excessive Deficit Procedure).