2012/2075(INI) | [ParlTrack]

2012/2075(INI) European Solidarity Fund, implementation and application

Progress: Procedure completed

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Lead	REGI	ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa ( PPE)	STAVRAKAKIS Georgios ( S&D), CHRYSOGELOS Nikos ( Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich ( ECR)

Lead committee dossier:

REGI/7/09360

Legal Basis:

RoP 54

Subjects

Events

2013/01/15

EP - Results of vote in Parliament

Documents

Results of vote in Parliament

2013/01/15

EP - Decision by Parliament

Details

The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 22, with 5 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application.

Parliament recalls that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission.

The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Parliament has undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020.

Implementation of the EUSF : Parliament stresses that, even though it is highly regarded by the public, the way in which it operates needs to be improved so as to make it more flexible and raise its profile, with a view to boosting the European Union's credibility among its citizens . It considers that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster).

Parliament also points out that the majority of applications (63%) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66% of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF.

Recommendations for improving the EUSF : Parliament shares the Commission's opinion that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. It considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. It also points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, Members wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument.

Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Parliament calls for:

- a reduction in the time taken to provide aid : Parliament highlights the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Parliament finds the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. It endorses the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disaster, and that it would help to make the EUSF more effective. It takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. Parliament takes the view that, given the uncertainty and unforeseeability concerning the number and severity of disasters that might occur, the EUSF should remain outside the Union budget , as is currently the case, and be mobilised when disasters happen;

- greater clarity as regards scope and definitions : Parliament calls on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund.

Parliament calls for clarification in regard to:

the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor).

Parliament takes the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. It also points out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens .

Parliament also recalls that disaster prevention plays a vital role. It calls for the following to be taken into account:

drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change.

Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster.

Parliament points out that it is very difficult to respond adequately, at EU level, to serious man-made crises with the existing instruments, as has been seen in the case of industrial accidents and serious public health crises, and that where such disasters occur, the Union needs to have suitable instruments to offer an appropriate response.

Lastly, Parliament calls for greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.

Documents

T7-0003/2013

2013/01/15

EP - End of procedure in Parliament

2013/01/14

EP - Debate in Parliament

Documents

Debate in Parliament

2012/12/20

EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading

Documents

A7-0398/2012

2012/12/19

EP - Committee report tabled for plenary

Documents

A7-0398/2012

2012/11/27

EP - Vote in committee

2012/10/17

EP - Amendments tabled in committee

Documents

PE497.998

2012/09/27

EP - Committee draft report

Documents

PE496.502

2012/05/24

EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament

2012/03/20

EP - ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
Decision by Parliament: T7-0003/2013
Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0398/2012
Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0398/2012
Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.998
Committee draft report: PE496.502
Committee draft report: PE496.502
Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.998
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0398/2012

Activities

Amendments	Dossier
29	2012/2075(INI) 2012/10/17 REGI 29 amendments... Amendment 1 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas ~~the current crisis obliges Member States and the EU not to incur exces~~natural disasters including extreme weather events within Europe have continued to grow both in sivze ~~spending~~and frequency; Amendment 10 # Petru Constantin LUHAN Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Wonders whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this Community instrument;deleted Amendment 11 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Highlights the urgent need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this Community instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year; points out, nevertheless, that this instrument was not created to provide a rapid response but to re-finance emergency operations financed initially by the public authorities in the affected country; Amendment 12 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Welcomes the EU Commission's proposal for contributing to simplify procedures at European level so as to reduce delays; underlines that Member States should also analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions; Amendment 13 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 b (new) 12b. Calls on Member States to closely cooperate with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation in order to ensure that Union's assistance is visible and effective on the ground and to promote sustainable solutions; Amendment 14 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Finds the Commission's proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements in the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once the European Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response; Amendment 15 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Endorses the idea that introducing ~~payments in advance of the application~~the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disasters and that it would help to make the Solidarity Fund more effective; takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Community in the event that the application was not accepted; Amendment 16 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Takes the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund where it has a significant impact on a region's socio-economic structure as it may happen after fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events; Amendment 17 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. TCalls for better clarification of the scope of the EUSF in a future proposal for a regulation, which should identify the Fund's areas of intervention, in addition to natural disasters, and set out which operations are eligible for cover under the Fund; takes the view that, where a disaster has 'cascading' effects, the 'collateral' damage should still be covered by the Fund where it has a significant impact on a region's socio-economic structure, and calls for clarification regarding the 'cascading' effects or 'collateral' damage caused by disasters that are covered by the EUSF; Amendment 18 # Luís Paulo ALVES Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses the need to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level, introducing an simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility; Amendment 19 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses the need to define clearly and simply what is a disaster at regional level and to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level, introducing an objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility; Amendment 2 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Highlights the importance of the Solidarity Fund as the main instrument allowing the European Union to respond to a serious disaster occurring within Union territory or in ~~a neighbouring country~~countries negotiating their accession to the EU; Amendment 20 # Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses the need to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level and have a cross-border impact, introducing an objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility; Amendment 21 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Takes the view that the criteria for eligibility for the EUSF should be adapted in the case of the outermost regions, in order to take account of their permanent constraints, their high risk of natural disasters and their difficulties in terms of access and connections, and the urgent need for assistance in the event of an emergency; takes the view that the weighting of such criteria should therefore take account of the additional costs associated with the island status of most of the outermost regions; calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for the estimated value of damage and/or the corresponding percentage of GDP in the event of disasters occurring in the outermost regions; Amendment 22 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Recalls, that disaster prevention plays a vital role in Union's policies and represents the cheapest way to reduce vulnerability towards disasters; underlines that EU regions should make coherent use of all the different funding opportunities for sustainable disaster prevention; Amendment 23 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 b (new) 20b. Demands sustainability to be taken into account for money spent under the EUSF so as to contribute to avoid repetition of disasters; Amendment 24 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Urges the Commission to examine and adapt the criteria so that the Solidarity Fund can respond to ~~Mediterrane~~fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events and natural disasters which, partly due to climate change, represent the most serious natural disasters that have been occurring in the Union in recent years; Amendment 25 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Urges the Commission to examine and adapt the criteria so that the Solidarity Fund can respond to Mediterranean natural disasters which, partly due to climate change, represent the most serious natural disasters that have been occurring in the Union in recent years, as well as natural disasters in the outermost regions, which face a greater risk of disasters and whose geographical and structural features tend to aggravate their effects; Amendment 26 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Points out that the EUSF does not cover all the damage arising from a natural disaster, and damage covered under this instrument should therefore be properly defined in a future proposal for a regulation; Amendment 27 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Underlines the importance of guaranteeing advance payments under the EUSF, based on the availability of an emergency fund, in order to boost the efficiency, speed and profile of this instrument among the people affected, and of looking into the possibility of approving long-term measures to cope with the prolonged effects of natural disasters; Amendment 28 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Highlights the need for the EUSF to complement other financial instruments, such as the structural funds and the EAFRD, in responding to natural disasters, taking advantage of the creation of synergies with these mechanisms and associated programmes; Amendment 29 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Urges that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020 and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster, if they consider this necessary and appropriate, and calls on the Commission to revise the regulation in force in good time for the new financial period; Amendment 3 # Petru Constantin LUHAN Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. PConsiders that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted, with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster, thereby falling short of the results hoped for; Amendment 4 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, ~~which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted, with the result that~~as these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States and regions affected by a disaster; Amendment 5 # Nikos CHRYSOGELOS Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Takes the view that, in the case of what are considered ‘'slowly unfolding’' disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation~~, chiefly due to the 10-week deadline set for submitting applications~~; Amendment 6 # Nuno TEIXEIRA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Takes the view that, in the case of what are considered 'slowly unfolding' disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation, chiefly due to the 10-week deadline set for submitting applications; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in the case of 'slowly unfolding' disasters where the damage tends to become clear over a long period, to pay particular attention to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF; Amendment 7 # Luís Paulo ALVES Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers it necessary, therefore, to allow for greater flexibility in the Fund's implementation in emergency situations involving a natural, environmental or technological disaster with serious repercussions on people's living conditions; Amendment 8 # Petru Constantin LUHAN Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. ~~Regret~~Considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation1 to a number of clarifications and an attempt to improve its operability; points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union's regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created; Amendment 9 # Luís Paulo ALVES Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Nevertheless welcomes the fact that simply making certain adjustments to the rules in force will achieve significant improvements to its operation whilst maintaining its rationale and character, which is chiefly to provide a flexible and effective instrument that can provide prompt assistance for citizens affected by a phenomenon that has serious repercussions on their living conditions and well-being; source: PE-497.998

Amendments

Dossier

2012/2075(INI)

2012/10/17 REGI 29 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ~~the current crisis obliges Member States and the EU not to incur exces~~natural disasters including extreme weather events within Europe have continued to grow both in sivze ~~spending~~and frequency;

Amendment 10 #

Petru Constantin LUHAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Wonders whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this Community instrument;deleted

Amendment 11 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Highlights the urgent need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this Community instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year; points out, nevertheless, that this instrument was not created to provide a rapid response but to re-finance emergency operations financed initially by the public authorities in the affected country;

Amendment 12 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Welcomes the EU Commission's proposal for contributing to simplify procedures at European level so as to reduce delays; underlines that Member States should also analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions;

Amendment 13 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls on Member States to closely cooperate with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation in order to ensure that Union's assistance is visible and effective on the ground and to promote sustainable solutions;

Amendment 14 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Finds the Commission's proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements in the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once the European Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response;

Amendment 15 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Endorses the idea that introducing ~~payments in advance of the application~~the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disasters and that it would help to make the Solidarity Fund more effective; takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Community in the event that the application was not accepted;

Amendment 16 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Takes the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund where it has a significant impact on a region's socio-economic structure as it may happen after fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events;

Amendment 17 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. TCalls for better clarification of the scope of the EUSF in a future proposal for a regulation, which should identify the Fund's areas of intervention, in addition to natural disasters, and set out which operations are eligible for cover under the Fund; takes the view that, where a disaster has 'cascading' effects, the 'collateral' damage should still be covered by the Fund where it has a significant impact on a region's socio-economic structure, and calls for clarification regarding the 'cascading' effects or 'collateral' damage caused by disasters that are covered by the EUSF;

Amendment 18 #

Luís Paulo ALVES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level, introducing an simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility;

Amendment 19 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to define clearly and simply what is a disaster at regional level and to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level, introducing an objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility;

Amendment 2 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights the importance of the Solidarity Fund as the main instrument allowing the European Union to respond to a serious disaster occurring within Union territory or in ~~a neighbouring country~~countries negotiating their accession to the EU;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level and have a cross-border impact, introducing an objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility;

Amendment 21 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Takes the view that the criteria for eligibility for the EUSF should be adapted in the case of the outermost regions, in order to take account of their permanent constraints, their high risk of natural disasters and their difficulties in terms of access and connections, and the urgent need for assistance in the event of an emergency; takes the view that the weighting of such criteria should therefore take account of the additional costs associated with the island status of most of the outermost regions; calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for the estimated value of damage and/or the corresponding percentage of GDP in the event of disasters occurring in the outermost regions;

Amendment 22 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Recalls, that disaster prevention plays a vital role in Union's policies and represents the cheapest way to reduce vulnerability towards disasters; underlines that EU regions should make coherent use of all the different funding opportunities for sustainable disaster prevention;

Amendment 23 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Demands sustainability to be taken into account for money spent under the EUSF so as to contribute to avoid repetition of disasters;

Amendment 24 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Urges the Commission to examine and adapt the criteria so that the Solidarity Fund can respond to ~~Mediterrane~~fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events and natural disasters which, partly due to climate change, represent the most serious natural disasters that have been occurring in the Union in recent years;

Amendment 25 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Urges the Commission to examine and adapt the criteria so that the Solidarity Fund can respond to Mediterranean natural disasters which, partly due to climate change, represent the most serious natural disasters that have been occurring in the Union in recent years, as well as natural disasters in the outermost regions, which face a greater risk of disasters and whose geographical and structural features tend to aggravate their effects;

Amendment 26 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Points out that the EUSF does not cover all the damage arising from a natural disaster, and damage covered under this instrument should therefore be properly defined in a future proposal for a regulation;

Amendment 27 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Underlines the importance of guaranteeing advance payments under the EUSF, based on the availability of an emergency fund, in order to boost the efficiency, speed and profile of this instrument among the people affected, and of looking into the possibility of approving long-term measures to cope with the prolonged effects of natural disasters;

Amendment 28 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Highlights the need for the EUSF to complement other financial instruments, such as the structural funds and the EAFRD, in responding to natural disasters, taking advantage of the creation of synergies with these mechanisms and associated programmes;

Amendment 29 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Urges that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020 and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster, if they consider this necessary and appropriate, and calls on the Commission to revise the regulation in force in good time for the new financial period;

Amendment 3 #

Petru Constantin LUHAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. PConsiders that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted, with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster, thereby falling short of the results hoped for;

Amendment 4 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, ~~which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted, with the result that~~as these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States and regions affected by a disaster;

Amendment 5 #

Nikos CHRYSOGELOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that, in the case of what are considered ‘'slowly unfolding’' disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation~~, chiefly due to the 10-week deadline set for submitting applications~~;

Amendment 6 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that, in the case of what are considered 'slowly unfolding' disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation, chiefly due to the 10-week deadline set for submitting applications; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in the case of 'slowly unfolding' disasters where the damage tends to become clear over a long period, to pay particular attention to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF;

Amendment 7 #

Luís Paulo ALVES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers it necessary, therefore, to allow for greater flexibility in the Fund's implementation in emergency situations involving a natural, environmental or technological disaster with serious repercussions on people's living conditions;

Amendment 8 #

Petru Constantin LUHAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Regret~~Considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation1 to a number of clarifications and an attempt to improve its operability; points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union's regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created;

Amendment 9 #

Luís Paulo ALVES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Nevertheless welcomes the fact that simply making certain adjustments to the rules in force will achieve significant improvements to its operation whilst maintaining its rationale and character, which is chiefly to provide a flexible and effective instrument that can provide prompt assistance for citizens affected by a phenomenon that has serious repercussions on their living conditions and well-being;

source: PE-497.998

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2023-08-03Show (4) Changes | Timetravel

docs/2	date 2012-12-20T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html title: A7-0398/2012 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP
events/2	date 2012-12-19T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html title: A7-0398/2012
events/2	date 2012-12-20T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html title: A7-0398/2012 summary The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters . The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘ regional disaster ’ , and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘ slowly unfolding ’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union ’ s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid , which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission ’ s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission ’ s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘ cascading ’ effects, the ‘ collateral ’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’ s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters , mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
events/3/docs	url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2013-01-14-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament

2021-12-18Show (13) Changes | Timetravel

docs/0/docs/0/url	Old http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502 New https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-496502_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url	Old http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998 New https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-497998_EN.html
events/0/type	Old Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading New Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type	Old Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading New Vote in committee
events/2	date 2012-12-20T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html title: A7-0398/2012 summary The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters . The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘ regional disaster ’ , and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘ slowly unfolding ’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union ’ s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid , which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission ’ s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission ’ s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘ cascading ’ effects, the ‘ collateral ’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’ s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters , mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
events/2	date 2012-12-20T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html title: A7-0398/2012 summary The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters . The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘ regional disaster ’ , and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘ slowly unfolding ’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union ’ s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid , which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission ’ s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission ’ s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘ cascading ’ effects, the ‘ collateral ’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’ s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters , mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
events/3/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130114&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5	date 2013-01-15T00:00:00 type Decision by Parliament body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0003_EN.html title: T7-0003/2013 summary The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 22, with 5 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Parliament recalls that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Parliament has undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020. Implementation of the EUSF : Parliament stresses that, even though it is highly regarded by the public, the way in which it operates needs to be improved so as to make it more flexible and raise its profile, with a view to boosting the European Union's credibility among its citizens . It considers that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). Parliament also points out that the majority of applications (63%) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66% of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF : Parliament shares the Commission's opinion that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. It considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. It also points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, Members wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Parliament calls for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid : Parliament highlights the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Parliament finds the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. It endorses the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disaster, and that it would help to make the EUSF more effective. It takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. Parliament takes the view that, given the uncertainty and unforeseeability concerning the number and severity of disasters that might occur, the EUSF should remain outside the Union budget , as is currently the case, and be mobilised when disasters happen; - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions : Parliament calls on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Parliament calls for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Parliament takes the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. It also points out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Parliament also recalls that disaster prevention plays a vital role. It calls for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Parliament points out that it is very difficult to respond adequately, at EU level, to serious man-made crises with the existing instruments, as has been seen in the case of industrial accidents and serious public health crises, and that where such disasters occur, the Union needs to have suitable instruments to offer an appropriate response. Lastly, Parliament calls for greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
events/5	date 2013-01-15T00:00:00 type Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body EP docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0003_EN.html title: T7-0003/2013 summary The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 22, with 5 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Parliament recalls that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Parliament has undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020. Implementation of the EUSF : Parliament stresses that, even though it is highly regarded by the public, the way in which it operates needs to be improved so as to make it more flexible and raise its profile, with a view to boosting the European Union's credibility among its citizens . It considers that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). Parliament also points out that the majority of applications (63%) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66% of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF : Parliament shares the Commission's opinion that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. It considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. It also points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, Members wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Parliament calls for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid : Parliament highlights the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Parliament finds the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. It endorses the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disaster, and that it would help to make the EUSF more effective. It takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. Parliament takes the view that, given the uncertainty and unforeseeability concerning the number and severity of disasters that might occur, the EUSF should remain outside the Union budget , as is currently the case, and be mobilised when disasters happen; - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions : Parliament calls on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Parliament calls for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Parliament takes the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. It also points out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Parliament also recalls that disaster prevention plays a vital role. It calls for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Parliament points out that it is very difficult to respond adequately, at EU level, to serious man-made crises with the existing instruments, as has been seen in the case of industrial accidents and serious public health crises, and that where such disasters occur, the Union needs to have suitable instruments to offer an appropriate response. Lastly, Parliament calls for greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
procedure/Modified legal basis	Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis	Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0	Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0	Rules of Procedure EP 052

2020-01-19Show (4) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0	type Responsible Committee body EP associated False committee_full Regional Development committee REGI rapporteur name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE shadows name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE name: VLASÁK Oldřich group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/0	type Responsible Committee body EP associated False committee_full Regional Development committee REGI date 2012-03-20T00:00:00 rapporteur name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE shadows name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE name: VLASÁK Oldřich group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
events/2/docs/0/url	Old http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-398&language=EN New http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0398_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url	Old http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 New http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0003_EN.html

2019-07-06Show (13) Changes | Timetravel

activities	date: 2012-05-24T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PPE name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PPE name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa date: 2012-12-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-398&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0398/2012 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading date: 2013-01-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130114&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament date: 2013-01-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=22284&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0003/2013 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission	body: EC dg: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HAHN Johannes
committees/0	type Responsible Committee body EP associated False committee_full Regional Development committee REGI date 2012-03-20T00:00:00 rapporteur name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE shadows name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE name: VLASÁK Oldřich group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/0	body EP shadows group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich responsible True committee REGI date 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full Regional Development rapporteur group: PPE name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa
docs	date: 2012-09-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502 title: PE496.502 type: Committee draft report body: EP date: 2012-10-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998 title: PE497.998 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
events	date: 2012-05-24T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP date: 2012-12-20T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-398&language=EN title: A7-0398/2012 summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters . The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘ regional disaster ’ , and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘ slowly unfolding ’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union ’ s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid , which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission ’ s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission ’ s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘ cascading ’ effects, the ‘ collateral ’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’ s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters , mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds. date: 2013-01-14T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130114&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament date: 2013-01-15T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=22284&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament date: 2013-01-15T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 title: T7-0003/2013 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 22, with 5 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Parliament recalls that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Parliament has undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020. Implementation of the EUSF : Parliament stresses that, even though it is highly regarded by the public, the way in which it operates needs to be improved so as to make it more flexible and raise its profile, with a view to boosting the European Union's credibility among its citizens . It considers that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). Parliament also points out that the majority of applications (63%) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66% of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF : Parliament shares the Commission's opinion that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. It considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. It also points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, Members wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Parliament calls for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid : Parliament highlights the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Parliament finds the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. It endorses the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disaster, and that it would help to make the EUSF more effective. It takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. Parliament takes the view that, given the uncertainty and unforeseeability concerning the number and severity of disasters that might occur, the EUSF should remain outside the Union budget , as is currently the case, and be mobilised when disasters happen; - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions : Parliament calls on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly , removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Parliament calls for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Parliament takes the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. It also points out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens . Parliament also recalls that disaster prevention plays a vital role. It calls for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Parliament points out that it is very difficult to respond adequately, at EU level, to serious man-made crises with the existing instruments, as has been seen in the case of industrial accidents and serious public health crises, and that where such disasters occur, the Union needs to have suitable instruments to offer an appropriate response. Lastly, Parliament calls for greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds. date: 2013-01-15T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other	body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HAHN Johannes
procedure/Modified legal basis	Old Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150 New Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	Old REGI/7/09360 New REGI/7/09360
procedure/legal_basis/0	Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0	Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject	Old 3.70.11 Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund 8.50.01 Implementation of EU law New 3.70.11 Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund 8.50.01 Implementation of EU law

2015-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

other/0/dg/title

Old

Regional Policy

New

Regional and Urban Policy

2014-11-09Show (29) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur/0/group	Old EPP New PPE
activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref	Old 4de184860fb8127435bdbda8 New 4f1ac7d4b819f25efd0000b0
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/0/mepref	Old 4de188ad0fb8127435bdc399 New 4f1adb98b819f207b30000d2
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2/group	Old ALDE New ECR
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref	Old 4de186d60fb8127435bdc0f9 New 4f1adc6eb819f207b3000119
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2/name	Old MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole New VLASÁK Oldřich
activities/0/date	Old 2012-11-27T00:00:00 New 2012-05-24T00:00:00
activities/0/type	Old Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading New Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
activities/1/committees	body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: PPE name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa
activities/1/date	Old 2012-09-27T00:00:00 New 2012-11-27T00:00:00
activities/1/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502 type: Committee draft report title: PE496.502
activities/1/type	Old Committee draft report New Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2	date 2012-10-17T00:00:00 docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998 type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE497.998 body EP type Amendments tabled in committee
activities/2/docs/0/text/0	Old The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly, removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens. Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds. New The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application. Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission. The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes. Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster). They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF. Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument. Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for: - a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions. Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground. Members find the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response. They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted. - greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly, removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund. Members call for clarification in regard to: the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters; the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor). Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens. Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account: drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set; Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change. Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.
activities/3/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130114&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/4/committees	body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: ALDE name: MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa
activities/4/date	Old 2012-05-24T00:00:00 New 2013-01-15T00:00:00
activities/4/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=22284&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0003/2013
activities/4/type	Old Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading New Results of vote in Parliament
activities/6	date 2013-01-15T00:00:00 docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0003/2013 body EP type Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
committees/0/rapporteur/0/group	Old EPP New PPE
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref	Old 4de184860fb8127435bdbda8 New 4f1ac7d4b819f25efd0000b0
committees/0/shadows/0/mepref	Old 4de188ad0fb8127435bdc399 New 4f1adb98b819f207b30000d2
committees/0/shadows/2/group	Old ALDE New ECR
committees/0/shadows/2/mepref	Old 4de186d60fb8127435bdc0f9 New 4f1adc6eb819f207b3000119
committees/0/shadows/2/name	Old MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole New VLASÁK Oldřich
procedure/Modified legal basis	Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
procedure/legal_basis/0	Old Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048 New Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject/1	Old 8.50.01 Implementation of Community law New 8.50.01 Implementation of EU law

2013-01-18Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

activities/6/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-3 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0003/2013
activities/6/type	Old Vote scheduled New Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage New Procedure completed

2013-01-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/5/type

Old

Debate scheduled

New

Debate in Parliament

2013-01-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/4/docs/0/text

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT (EPP, ES) on the European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application.

Members recall that the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters. The EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation. Nevertheless, the EUSF is in need of reform. In 2005, the Commission issued a proposal for a new EUSF Regulation which was widely supported by Parliament but the text proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States. As a result the proposal was withdrawn by the Commission.

The EUSF, nevertheless, needs revision to be made more flexible so as to improve how it operates. This is why Members have undertaken a detailed review and have prepared a series of proposals for changes.

Implementation of the EUSF: Members consider that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly point to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted (with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster).

They also point out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission. In the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation. Members therefore call on the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF.

Recommendations for improving the EUSF: like the Commission, Members consider that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States. They consider that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation. They also point out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created. In this regard, they wonder whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument.

Among the major improvements to the EUSF, Members call for:

- a reduction in the time taken to provide aid: Members highlight the need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures relating to this financial instrument so as to reduce delays. They call on Member States to analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions.

Member States are also called upon to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground.

Members find the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response.

They endorse the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available (for example in the form of a fixed percentage of the total aid likely to be allocated). This funding would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted.

- greater clarity as regards scope and definitions: Members call on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly, removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected. Members take the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund.

Members call for clarification in regard to:
- the eligibility of disasters at regional level, by introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters;
- the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster (in the case where it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor).
Members take the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1.5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible. They also point out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect. It will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union ’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens.

Members also recall that disaster prevention plays a vital role. They call for the following to be taken into account:
- drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set;
- Mediterranean natural disasters, mainly due to climate change.
Members stress that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster. Lastly, Members call for: (i) a better definition of the damage covered by this instrument in the event of a natural disaster; and (ii) greater complementarity with other funding instruments, such as the Structural Funds.

2013-01-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/4/docs/0/url

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-398&language=EN

2012-12-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/4

date: 2012-12-20T00:00:00

docs: type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0398/2012

body: EP

type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading

2012-12-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/4

date: 2012-12-05T00:00:00

docs: type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0398/2012

body: EP

type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading

2012-12-14Show (5) Changes | Timetravel

activities/5/type	Old Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading New Debate scheduled
activities/6	date 2013-01-15T00:00:00 body EP type Vote scheduled
other/0/commissioner	Old LEWANDOWSKI Janusz New HAHN Johannes
other/0/dg/title	Old Budget New Regional Policy
other/0/dg/url	Old http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ New http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm

2012-12-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/4

date: 2012-12-05T00:00:00

docs: type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0398/2012

body: EP

type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading

2012-12-01Show (8) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1/date	Old 2012-11-26T00:00:00 New 2012-09-27T00:00:00
activities/1/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502 type: Committee draft report title: PE496.502
activities/1/type	Old Prev Adopt in Cte New Committee draft report
activities/2	date 2012-09-27T00:00:00 docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502 type: Committee draft report title: PE496.502 body EP type Committee draft report
activities/2/date	Old 2012-04-19T00:00:00 New 2012-10-17T00:00:00
activities/2/docs	url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998 type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE497.998
activities/2/type	Old EP officialisation New Amendments tabled in committee
activities/3	date 2012-10-17T00:00:00 docs url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998 type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE497.998 body EP type Amendments tabled in committee

2012-11-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/5

date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00

body: EP

type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading

committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: ALDE name: MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole group: Verts/ALE name: CHRYSOGELOS Nikos responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa

2012-10-26Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3/docs/0/url

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE497.998

2012-10-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/5/date

Old

2012-12-10T00:00:00

New

2013-01-14T00:00:00

2012-10-18Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3	date 2012-10-17T00:00:00 docs type: Amendments tabled in committee title: PE497.998 body EP type Amendments tabled in committee
activities/4/date	Old 2012-10-17T00:00:00 New 2012-11-26T00:00:00
activities/4/type	Old Deadline Amendments New Prev Adopt in Cte

2012-10-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3

body: EP

date: 2012-10-17T00:00:00

type: Deadline Amendments

2012-10-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/2/docs/0/url

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.502

2012-10-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3

date: 2012-12-10T00:00:00

body: EP

type: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading

2012-09-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/2

date: 2012-09-27T00:00:00

docs: type: Committee draft report title: PE496.502

body: EP

type: Committee draft report

2012-09-25Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1/committees/0/shadows/2	group Verts/ALE name CHRYSOGELOS Nikos
committees/0/shadows/2	group Verts/ALE name CHRYSOGELOS Nikos

2012-09-19Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1/committees/0/shadows	group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: ALDE name: MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole
committees/0/shadows	group: S&D name: STAVRAKAKIS Georgios group: ALDE name: MĂNESCU Ramona Nicole

2012-07-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

procedure/legal_basis

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048

2012-05-31Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1	date 2012-05-24T00:00:00 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	REGI/7/09360
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage

2012-05-26Show (5) Changes

activities	body: EP date: 2012-04-19T00:00:00 type: EP officialisation
committees	body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2012-03-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa
links
other	body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: LEWANDOWSKI Janusz
procedure	reference 2012/2075(INI) title European Solidarity Fund, implementation and application stage_reached Preparatory phase in Parliament subtype Implementation type INI - Own-initiative procedure subject 3.70.11 Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund 8.50.01 Implementation of Community law

Progress: Procedure completed

Lead committee dossier:

REGI/7/09360

Legal Basis:

Subjects

Links

Events

Documents

Activities

History

ParlTrack - 2011-2024