8 Amendments of Victor NEGRESCU related to 2016/2045(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas since its creation in 2002 the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has responded to 69 disasters across Europe; whereas 24 countries of the 28 Member States have been assisted, receiving disaster relief funds amounting to a total of EUR 3.7 billion;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the 2014 revision of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the EU Solidarity Fund improves and simplifies the procedures; whereas the deadline for the request for aid has been extended, leaving the Member States to use the contribution within 18 months from the disbursement, advance payments have been introduced and certain provisions have been made clearer;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas until the revision almost all the rejections concerned regional disasters, while the new regulation clarifies rules on eligibility with one single criterion for regional disasters based on a threshold of 1.5 % of regional gross domestic product or 1% for outermost regions set at NUTS 2 level;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas under the provisions of the revised EUSF Regulation the Commission received seven new applications in 2014 and three applications in 2015, compared to eight in 2013 which represents also the yearly average of applications per year;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas exceptionally, in case of insufficient funds available in a given year, the following year’s funds may already be used taking into consideration the annual budgetary ceiling of the fund for both the year when the disaster occurred and for the next year as well;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes in the new regulation the possibility of making advance payments of up to 10 % of the likely amount of aid, capped at EUR 30 million; considers, however, that the time taken between the application and payment is rather long; recommends further improvements in the assessment phase and subsequent phases facilitating the execution of payments; recommends establishing a legal framework defining the length of the evaluation period;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for clear criteria concerning the monitoring visit to the beneficiary states to evaluate the implementation system put in place, as well as monitoring of proper use of resources;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that, despite built-in flexibility (carry-over N+1), substantial funds are at risk of going unused each year; further proposes reflecting on how to limit the non-use of these amounts in the future, taking full account of the inherently variable nature of the subject matter (dependent on the fluctuating number of applications received and/or the financial needs in any given year); evaluate the possibility of supplying unused funds for ex-ante and ex-post activities and actions in areas affected by disasters.