18 Amendments of Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS related to 2016/2045(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to the UN report, through the UNISRD (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) as part of the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action to manage the risk of disasters,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
Citation 13 b (new)
- having regard to the studies produced by the World Bank and its International Development Association (IDA) on the situation for women in disasters,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to ensuring as rapid a response as possible and thus improving the effectiveness of relief funding, even though it has proved insufficient and there is still a significant delay in paying out aid, which means that the effectiveness offered by early assistance is lost;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas women are among the groups that suffer the consequences of natural disasters most acutely, as reflected in many reports by international organisations researching and working in this field; these include the UN report, through the UNISRD (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) as part of the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action to manage the risk of disasters, which states that the gender perspective should be ‘integrated into all disaster risk management policies, plans and decision-making processes, including those related to risk assessment, early warning, information management and education and training’; the World Bank makes the same point, in the studies drawn up by its International Development Association (IDA), which states that ‘women are much more likely than men to be killed in natural disasters’ and that ‘including gender in disaster planning can help avoid costly mistakes and save lives’;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in the context of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions; takes the view that the goals of the Solidarity Fund should be widened to include humanitarian disasters, such as the current refugee crisis, and not only natural disasters; takes the view, likewise, that other man-made crises should also be included, such as industrial accidents or public health crises, while upholding the principle that those causing the damage should pay for it;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that, since the Fund was established natural disasters in the Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity and providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters; points out that the amount allocated to the fund, EUR 500 million a year, will be insufficient owing to the consequences of climate change, which are being reflected in a steady increase in natural disasters and forecasts of a further increase in the coming years; suggests, therefore, that the budget allocated to the Solidarity Fund should be increased accordingly;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that, just as consideration should be given to widening the goals of the Fund to include humanitarian and other disasters, such as industrial accidents and public health crises, the amount of money allocated to the Fund should also be increased to cover these new goals;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a maximum allocation of EUR 500 million (at 2011 prices), on top of any amounts remaining from the previous year; points out that this is leading to increased delays in payments, since every time there is an emergency a special procedure must be carried out to allocate and release funds; proposes, in this connection, that the financing of the Solidarity Fund should be brought within the Union budget so that it can be made available more quickly and thereby provide an earlier and more effective response to citizens affected by a disaster;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of the 2014 revision, which represented a belated response to its repeated calls to improve the effectiveness of aid in order to ensure a rapid response in support of people affected by natural disasters; takes the view, however, that fresh reforms should be undertaken, especially relating to the goals of the fund, eligibility thresholds and matters linked to procedure, such as transparency, simplification, and the inclusion of gender policies among the eligibility criteria;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the main components of the reform, such as the introduction of advance payments of up to 10 % of the anticipated financial contribution available on demand soon after an application for a financial contribution from the Fund has been submitted to the Commission (upper limit of the contribution set at EUR 30 million), the eligibility of technical assistance directly linked to project operations (a key European Parliament request), the extension of the deadlines by which Member States must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months), as well as the introduction of a six-month deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications; takes the view, however, that this amount is insufficient and that it should be increased to 20%; takes a positive view of the eligibility of technical assistance directly linked to project operations (a key European Parliament request), but considers it vital that the remaining external technical assistance should also be included as an eligible cost, including management, monitoring, information and communication, dealing with complaints and control and auditing; welcomes the fact that the reform envisages extending the deadlines by which Member States must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months), even though it considers the time granted to be insufficient and takes the view that it should be increased to 24 months; points out that the introduction of a six-month deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications allows too much time and efforts should be made to shorten this deadline as far as possible in order to ensure that aid can be brought to the people affected more quickly;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises, however, that, in spite of the introduction of an advance payment mechanism upstream of the standard procedure, beneficiaries still face problems as a result of the length of the overall process, which culminates in payment of the final contribution; emphasises, in this context, the need to speed up the processing of applications and ensure that as many as possible are dealt with by the deadline set; takes the view that it would be of enormous help in this connection if the budget of the EUSF were included in the Union budget; urges that excessive bureaucracy in the procedure be simplified while at the same time stressing the need for maximum transparency in the awarding, management and implementation of funds;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Member States themselves to improve communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities, both in preparing applications and setting up projects; proposes, in this connection, that part of the fund be earmarked for the creation of a training programme for staff working for public authorities in each of the Member States who currently hold positions with responsibility for managing emergencies and disasters, in order to enhance their capacity in relation to applying for and managing funds;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Proposes that the system of economic thresholds for the eligibility of proposals be changed so that the poorest countries and regions have easier access to funding, moving from a proportional system like the one currently in place to a progressive system where the richest countries and regions would have higher thresholds than the poorest countries and regions; stresses that this change would offer genuine support for cohesion policy and represent a fairer and more solidarity-based way of using EU resources; proposes, in this connection, that the following thresholds be used: for serious disasters at state level, a progressive threshold in line with gross national income (GNI) of 0.6% for the highest-income state (or candidate country for accession) and 0.4% for the lowest-income state, applying the corresponding percentage between those figures to the remaining states; recalls that the 0.6% threshold, or estimated cost of over EUR 3 billion in 2011 prices, currently applies to all states; for serious disasters at regional level, a progressive threshold in line with regional gross domestic product (GDP) of 1% for the region with the highest GDP and 0.75% for the region with the lowest GDP, applying the corresponding percentage between those figures to the remaining regions; recalls that a threshold of 1.5% currently applies to all regions;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Proposes that a criterion needs to be introduced for regional disasters affecting NUTS level 3 areas in cases where several neighbouring regions together make up an area equivalent in size to a NUTS level 2 region; suggests that in this case the threshold would be calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the various NUTS level 3 areas affected; points out that disasters evidently affect geographical areas that do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of administrative areas, and it would be absurd if the European Union had no procedural mechanisms to deal fairly with all areas affected by disasters; proposes, further, in keeping with the proposal made by the Committee of the Regions, that the term ‘exceptional cross- border natural disaster’ be used where, as in the above case, several NUTS level 3 regions may belong to different Member States;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Points out that women are among the groups that suffer the consequences of natural disasters most acutely, and consequently proposes that gender equality policies and women’s rights be included as criteria for the eligibility of proposals;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to forestalling, as far as possible, the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term development of reconstruction projects;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improventroduce mandatory procedures to ensure maximum transparency and calls for guaranteed public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of the application to project closure;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates its call, therefore, that in the near future the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters should be set at 1 between 0.75% of regional GDP, in particular for the regions worst affected by the economic crisis and the refugee crisis (for the poorest regions) and 1% of regional GDP (for the richest regions);