The EU must shift from reactive ‘firefighting’ to long-term disaster foresight if it wants to protect its citizens effectively, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) warned in a new opinion adopted in December. The call comes as Europe faces more frequent climate extremes, growing cyber-physical risks and geopolitical instability.

According to rapporteur Florian Marin, the EU still treats disasters as isolated shocks rather than predictable, interconnected threats. ‘Prevention is no longer optional’, he said, arguing it is Europe’s most cost-effective and humane form of defence.

While the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) has been strengthened in recent years, most notably with the rescEU reserve after devastating wildfires, the EESC says the system remains overly focused on emergency response rather than risk reduction. Fragmentation between civil protection, climate adaptation and security policies continues to limit coordination.

The Committee calls for less red tape, modernised data and early-warning systems, more trained staff, streamlined procurement and stable funding for professionals and volunteers. Disaster-risk reduction should also become a core pillar of the EU’s 2028-2034 regional planning.

Recent cross-border flood responses show what is possible. ‘A prepared Union is a stronger Union’, Mr Marin concluded. Europe cannot afford to wait for the next crisis. (ks) 

by the EESC Civil Society Organisations' Group and the EESC External Relations' Section

Following Brexit and the United Kingdom's withdrawal from Erasmus+ projects, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) joined forces with young people and civil society organisations in the UK who believed that the programme was not merely a cost for the UK but a vital investment in the future of its young people.

In April 2024, the EESC adopted an own-initiative opinion on EU-UK Youth Engagement, drafted by Cillian Lohan (EESC Civil Society Organisations' Group), urging the European Commission to step up negotiations for the UK’s full reintegration into Erasmus+. This stance had the firm support of the European Youth Forum, the British Youth Council and numerous youth organisations across both the UK and the EU.

The EESC also partnered with the Scottish Advisory Forum on Europe (SAFE) to launch a joint leaflet — 'Youth Participation: Connecting Youth, Creating Change in Europe and the UK'. Business groups, trade unions and civil society organisations, members of the EESC's Domestic advisory group under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, echoed this call in a statement issued on the 2025 EU-UK Summit, advocating for forward-looking initiatives to promote youth exchanges and opportunities for young workers, including renewed engagement with Erasmus+ and Creative Europe.

In a landmark development, December 2025 saw the EU and UK agree that the UK would re-join Erasmus+ from 2027. This breakthrough promises to reinvigorate international mobility and cooperation, especially for young people. The achievement stands as a testament to the EESC’s influence, its ability to involve and engage with civil society and the far-reaching impact of its advocacy at international level. It also proves that civil society can make a difference.

Background information:

Erasmus+ is the European Union’s flagship initiative for education, training, youth and sport, fostering opportunities for study, training, volunteering and cross-border partnerships. Before Brexit, the United Kingdom played a full and active role in the programme, with thousands of students from both the UK and the rest of the EU benefitting from exchanges and collaboration.

However, following Brexit, the UK opted not to participate as an associated third country in Erasmus+. This decision drastically reduced the UK’s access to Erasmus+ projects, leaving only a handful of opportunities open to British institutions and individuals: those available to participants worldwide. Simultaneously, EU students found their prospects for studying in the UK significantly reduced. By 2019, the number of EU students in the UK had already decreased by more than half, with a similar decline observed among British students heading to the EU.

By José Antonio Moreno Díaz

Women's right to abortion in safe, decent conditions and in a calm, trustworthy environment has long been the subject of debate and continues to be so today.

It would be a mistake to try and link this right and the peaceful, safe exercise thereof to moral issues or religious or ethical beliefs that are completely outside the scope of the debate.

The issue being debated is the freedom and autonomy that women should have over their own bodies – their privacy and personal autonomy and their sexual and reproductive freedom. This is clearly part of their personal dignity as human beings.

The exercise of this right also involves health issues and the personal health of the women concerned.

Therefore, the right to abortion and the right to the genuine, free, safe exercise of abortion should be considered a fundamental right, as already recognised in some EU countries, and included in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In this regard, the situation varies across the EU, where some Member States completely prohibit abortion (even criminalising it) while others severely limit this right through very restrictive regulatory frameworks on the basis of time limits or other criteria. Other countries recognise the right but it is extremely difficult to exercise due to organisational or functional problems with health and/or administrative services. In other countries, access is free without restrictions.

The question is how it can be possible that in an environment of rights and freedoms and with respect for Article 2 of the EU Treaty, these disparities continue to exist, affecting the fundamental rights of women, who make up approximately 50% of the EU population.

The proposal of the European citizens' initiative My Voice, My Choice – formally and verifiably supported by more than one million EU citizens – seeks to open this debate in a pragmatic way.

Given that the EU does not have competence in health matters and harmonisation is difficult in this field, it is proposed to create an EU budget fund to facilitate travel to another EU country and health coverage for the proper exercise of the right to abortion in that other EU country. Experience shows that only women with financial means in countries where abortion is prohibited or restricted can afford the costs of such travel, while thousands of other women who lack the financial wherewithal must either undergo unwanted pregnancies or resort to unsafe, clandestine or risky abortion practices, with serious risks to their health and integrity.

The EESC opinion fully supports the My Voice, My Choice initiative and endorses the arguments put forward by civil society in promoting this initiative, which has already been approved by the European Parliament. We hope that the Commission will shoulder its responsibility, listen to civil society, take note of this initiative and the underlying debate and take the initiative to design an EU policy instrument that facilitates access to abortion rights for all women in the EU.