Interview | Jan Farský: The EU is not a cash machine, but solidarity in action. The floods showed that it works

The European Parliament approved €114 million from the EU Solidarity Fund for the Czech Republic following last year’s floods. In your view, what real impact does this aid have on the affected regions, and what does it show about the EU’s ability to respond to climate disasters?

This money truly can—and should—have a direct impact in the regions hit by last year’s floods. It’s meant to go, for instance, towards repairing damaged infrastructure.

But it’s important to note that this is not the only funding the EU released in relation to the floods. After all, no one would be celebrating eight months later if help only arrived now—support was needed immediately. And it came. Already last year, we managed to negotiate with the European Commission to shift CZK 50 billion from cohesion funds to recovery efforts. On top of that, several European countries provided us with material aid during the floods. That’s not just symbolic—it directly reduced damage and, most importantly, saved lives. That’s EU solidarity in action.

The Solidarity Fund was designed as an exceptional instrument. But today we’re facing a new reality of frequent extreme weather events. In your opinion, is the fund still sufficient, or does it require a major reform—perhaps toward prevention?

I firmly believe that it’s always better—and cheaper—to address the root causes rather than pay dearly for the consequences. In this context, everyone needs to realize that the climate crisis is real and that we must take steps to mitigate or, ideally, prevent its impacts. Otherwise, we’ll be facing extreme heat and drought every year, only to be followed by flash floods.

From my perspective, the Solidarity Fund is a right and necessary tool. But it’s key to recognize that it’s not the only one. The administrative process surrounding it is quite lengthy. I would expect that, as the years go on and the impacts of natural disasters intensify, the costs will rise and the demands from member states will grow as well.

Beyond financial support, the EU has operational mechanisms such as rescEU. How effective do you think these tools are on the ground, and where do you see room for improvement?

This mechanism works—not just on paper, but in practice. We’ve experienced it both ways: when needed, the Czech Republic offers help, and we also receive it.

Let me point to the example from last September, when devastating floods hit the Czech Republic. Through rescEU, Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, and Croatia provided us with hundreds of dehumidifiers, which were essential for drying out flood-damaged homes.

If I were to name a weakness of rescEU, it’s that it functions on a voluntary basis and somewhat depends on good relationships. But we can genuinely see that when something happens in a member state, we help one another.

As a former mayor, you know the needs of municipalities first-hand. What should change so that EU programs and national governments support local adaptation to climate change more effectively?

The most important thing is quality information and support with new solutions. Frontline politicians—mayors—respond to societal needs, and if those needs aren’t widely acknowledged, implementation becomes difficult.

And then there are national regulations. Getting more greenery into streets, for example, is nearly impossible with all the limitations set by national legislation. But that doesn’t mean we should give up.

Is today’s European climate and crisis policy sufficiently interconnected? Or does sectoral thinking still dominate, making effective prevention and disaster response harder?

To me, they still seem like two separate vessels. At the same time, I feel they complement each other fairly well. Of course, we could argue for more money for individual programs or for the creation of new ones. But on the other hand, we can’t just keep waiting for the EU to pay out the amounts we request. It’s not just a cash machine.

In terms of Czech preparedness—are we able to use EU assistance effectively, or are we lagging behind countries with greater proactive capacity in prevention and resilience?

I’d have to ask in return—what are the criteria for such an assessment? At the last plenary session in Strasbourg, we approved the amounts allocated to countries affected by the floods last September, reallocated from the Solidarity Fund. And the Czech Republic received the largest share of financial support.