The Minister of the Interior, Annelies Verlinden, looks back on this tragedy and discusses the lessons to be learned from the reaction of the public authorities.
When you become Minister of the Interior, you don’t necessarily expect to manage this kind of crisis…
Since July 14, 2021, I have returned to the region several times. You can still see the damage today. All these empty houses, these houses for sale… After the peak of the floods, I was able to fly over the area in a helicopter and I saw the seriousness of the situation: everything was gone, even the soil from the gardens had been washed away, the paths, bridges, schools… We cannot imagine the extent of this tragedy. We now have to rebuild an entire region. In Chaudfontaine and elsewhere, from the first day, we visited the reception centres: the inhabitants had lost everything, every family memory, every photo. Very often, they had not yet received news from their loved ones. Getting back to life for these more vulnerable populations is in itself a huge challenge.
After the emotion, politics quickly regained its rights. Critics have been leveled at the slowness of the federal government’s reaction. Was it justified?
Cybersecurity, pandemic, Ukrainian crisis, Brexit… Managing a crisis at the federal level is only the top of the security cycle. Faced with the floods, the federal government did what it could. We had contacts with the governors before the peak of the floods arrived and some of them told us that entering into the federal phase of crisis management was not necessary. When we saw that several provinces were very seriously affected, I initiated the federal crisis management phase. Ten days later, only nine municipalities were still concerned and I ended this federal phase after consultation with the governors. A federal support unit was then created. It was an innovation because the relief coordination should have been done by the municipalities and the Province. This cell coordinated federal aid until February.
What lessons have you learned from these events? Two studies are in progress: an analysis of emergency procedures and an analysis of the reorganization of civil protection decided by Jan Jambon (N-VA) under the Michel government. He had suppressed four out of six barracks.
On the analysis carried out by the commission of experts (known as the “learning commission”) on the emergency procedures, I do not expect any revolution. We will receive its conclusions at the end of October or the beginning of November. But, from my contacts with the experts, it appears that the importance of good communication and good organization in emergency situations will be highlighted. I have already launched the drafting of a new law on emergency planning and management so that the structures used for each type of crisis are the same. This is not always the case and it does not make things easier.
Is the Belgian institutional system in question?
The relationship between the federal government and the Regions is very important. During natural disasters, the Regions are particularly competent for the prevention and reconstruction of housing, roads, etc. Rain is the responsibility of the Federal Meteorological Institute, but water in rivers and canals is the responsibility of the regional level. So everyone has to communicate well. It is true that the structure of our State did not facilitate things during the floods. However, I noticed a real will to collaborate between the levels of power. But, as I said, the danger can come from a lack of communication, where everyone reasons on their own and locks themselves into their own vision of what they have to do.
Should more power be given to the federal government in crisis management?
No. At the federal level, for example, we have no experts on rivers because that is not our jurisdiction. We are not going to duplicate the professions of specialists in the Regions in order to manage crises at the federal level! It is better to organize the collaboration well.
And on the reform of civil protection?
The report is expected by the end of August. The experts and private partners (universities) appointed to analyze this reform, implemented in 2019, conducted many interviews in the field.
A mistake by Jan Jambon, the former Minister of the Interior?
I hear personalities from several parties of the former majority (Michel government) recognize that the abolition of barracks was not a good decision. Investing in crisis management is like insurance: we hope that nothing will happen while still mobilizing means and human resources that cost a lot of money. How to prepare as best as possible? What investment are we ready to make?
What is your opinion exactly?
For civil protection, consideration should be given to working with outposts that would be specialized. Each barracks does not have to do everything. There would also be collaborations to be established with the relief areas. For crisis management, the law giving the same backbone at the federal level, whatever the situation, is very important. Professionals must train more in the face of crises and acquire organizational automatisms. Finally, we must invest in a culture of risk: people must evacuate when a message from the authorities tells them to do so. In the Netherlands, this communication worked better.
The cost of the floods for the Walloon funds is 2.8 billion euros. The federal government had lent 1 billion to the Region. Was it enough?
The funding act does not authorize the federal government to give money. But, on a personal level, I think that, if the federal loan of 1 billion is well invested, it will be necessary to ask whether Wallonia should repay it. We must show solidarity between the institutions in the face of these unforeseen situations. The floods are a disaster for Wallonia.