14 Amendments of Bronis ROPĖ related to 2016/2045(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasterenable the EU to respond to major disasters inside the EU and in countries involved in accession negotiations and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only by supporting emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;
Amendment 20 #
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, re-determining its scope, establishing clear criteria for a regional disaster, strengthening disaster prevention and thus improving the effectiveness of relief funding;
Amendment 33 #
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 contextcontribution to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions;
Amendment 43 #
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; regrets that there is a tendency in the Council not to honour EUSF commitments, but to take money away from other programmes rather than mobilising - as foreseen - additional resources by the special instruments; recalls that such shifting of payments should be prevented;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of the 2014 revision, which managed to overcome the blockage in the Council and 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;
Amendment 49 #
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 and new provisions on the prevention of natural disasters;
Amendment 53 #
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 submission and processing of applications and ensure that as many as possible are dealt with by the deadline set;
Amendment 59 #
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 applicat at all stages of implementation in order to ensure that Union's and setting up projectssistance is effective on the ground and to promote sustainable solutions;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that EUSF support should be visible to the public; calls on the authorities concerned to provide information on EUSF support without generating additional administrative burden;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points outAcknowledges that the Fund can still only provides assistance for non-insurable damage and does not provide compensation for private losses; emphasises that long-term measures, such as sustainable reconstruction or economic development and prevention activities, are not admissible, but may be eligible for financing under other Union instruments, in particular the European structural and investment funds (ESI Funds);
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Welcomes the provisions introduced in 2014 to strengthen prevention of natural disasters; underlines that efforts must be stepped-up to consider prevention as a horizontal task; calls for preventive measures following the eco-system based approach to be identified as priority when mitigating the consequences of disaster under the EUSF;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned, a realistic eligibility threshold as well as respective definitions should be set for regional natural disasters;
Amendment 96 #
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 % of regional GDP, in particular for the regions worst affected by the economic crisis and the refugee crisis;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Demands sustainability to be taken into account for money spent under the EUSF so as to contribute to avoid repetition of disasters; calls on the authorities concerned to prefer eco-system based solutions over technical ones;