2016/2045(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 2

verify that the financed actions have been properly carried out, and where they have not, identify the irregularities and take concrete and effective preventive measures.

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 3

ensure that expenditure funded is based on verifiable supporting documents, and is used correctly and for the right purpose, transparent and regular,

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 4

prevent, detect and correct irregularities and recover amounts unduly paid together with interest on late payments where appropriate, to notify any such irregularities to the Commission ~~and to keep it informed of the progress of administrative and legal proceedings~~;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for the EUSF be included in the next Multiannual Financial Framework so as to ensure the unity of the EU budget;

Amendment 14 #

Raffaele FITTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Regrets the persisting difficulties in assessing whether the applications associated with regional disasters meet the exceptional criteria set out in the regulation; calls on the Commission to simplify and improve administrative procedures on the occasion of the next EUSF revision;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Regrets the fact that in many cases a serious lack of transparency has been noted regarding the use and the destination of the EUSF; asks for an improvement in the ex post monitoring system for spending, and accurate and coherent justification of that spending, and strongly believes that the final reports provided by Member States should be public and accessible;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Regrets the fact that in many cases a serious lack of transparency has been noted regarding the use and the destination of the EUSF; asks for an improvement in the ex post monitoring system for spending and ~~strongly~~ believes that the final reports provided by Member States should be public, objective and accessible;

Amendment 17 #

Derek VAUGHAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Regrets the fact that in ~~many~~some cases a serious lack of transparency has been noted regarding the use and the destination of the EUSF; asks for an improvement in the ex post monitoring system for spending and strongly believes that the final reports provided by Member States should be public and accessible;

Amendment 18 #

Raffaele FITTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the importance of the public procurement procedures followed by Member States in response to natural disasters with a view to identifying and ~~disseminat~~harmonising best practice and lessons learned with regard to contracts in emergency situations;

Amendment 19 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that necessary improvements to the regulation could include a request for mandatory updated national plans for disaster management, and the preparation of agreements on emergency contracts~~, the implementation of provisional accommodation measures in disaster areas and the transfer to the EU budget of any revenue generated by the use of the EUSF~~;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Draws attention to its resolution of 3 April 2014 on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2012 Commission discharge, which expressed support for the ECA’s finding that ‘around 30 % (EUR 144 million) of the EUSF contributions was earmarked for operations which were fully eligible under the EUSF Regulation; however, the CASE project (Italian acronym for ‘Complessi Antisisminici Sostenibili Ecocompatibiliti’, i.e. seismically isolated and environmentally sustainable housing), while relevant to the actual needs, did not comply with specific provisions of the EUSF Regulation; this was because it constructed new permanent buildings instead of temporary houses; the CASE project took 70 % of the funding – EUR 350 million; the strategy chosen for CASE project addressed the housing needs of 15 000 of the earthquake-affected population, but did not respond in a timely manner and with sufficient capacity to the actual needs of the population; the CASDE houses were more expensive than standard houses’; regrets that in many cases the quality of the CASE project has been found to be very poor and some houses have collapsed; asks the Commission to explain how, in the revised Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund that entered into force on 28 June 2014, the shortcomings identified by the Court of Auditors in the delivery of emergency aid to the Abruzzo region have been solvedwelcomes the fact that the new Regulation defines 'provisional accommodation', something that will help avoid misuse of funds;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that necessary improvements to the regulation could include a request for mandatory updated national plans for disaster management, the preparation of agreements on emergency contracts, the implementation of provisional accommodation measures in disaster areas ~~and the transfer to the EU budget of any revenue generated by the use of the EUSF~~;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that necessary improvements to the regulation could include a request for mandatory updated national plans for disaster management, the introduction of a concrete action plan, the preparation of agreements on emergency contracts, the implementation of provisional accommodation measures in disaster areas and the transfer to the EU budget of any revenue generated by the use of the EUSF;

Amendment 23 #

Raffaele FITTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Stresses that the Member States too must look at their own administrative procedures with a view to accelerating the mobilisation of aid for affected regions;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Emphasises, furthermore, that Article 11 of the amended regulation gives the Commission and the ECA the power of audit and allows the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to conduct investigations ifwhenever necessary;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Emphasises, furthermore, that Article 11 of the amended regulation gives the ~~Commission and the~~ ECA the power of audit and allows the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to conduct investigations if necessary;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that the EUSF should, wherever possible, create synergies with other sources of financial assistance, in particular with the European Structural Fand Investment Funds; calls, therefore, with a view to ensuring the proper implementation of the EUSF, on the states to set out clearly what damage is to be covered by the EUSF and what action will be undertaken with the support of other funds;

Amendment 27 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that the EUSF should, wherever possible, create synergies with other sources of financial assistance, in particular with the European Structural and Investment Funds;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that the EUSF should~~, wherever possible,~~ create synergies with other sources of financial assistance, in particular with the Structural Funds;

Amendment 29 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Believes that there should be additional requirements for higher visibility of EUSF assistance in supported areas in order to demonstrate its European added value;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

~~3. Regrets the lack of transparency regarding the use of the EUSF in Emilia Romagna and Sardinia, which received EUR 670 192 359 and EUR 16 310 467 respectively;~~deleted

Amendment 4 #

Derek VAUGHAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

~~3. Regrets the lack of transparency regarding the use of the EUSF in Emilia Romagna and Sardinia, which received EUR 670 192 359 and EUR 16 310 467 respectively;~~deleted

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Understands that disasters and the desire to help people in distress as swiftly as possible may put strain on national administrations; believes, however, that Member States should implement EU legislation on disaster risk prevention and management, and establish programmes to deal with emergencies and natural disasters which ~~allows~~enable the authorities concerned to receive rapid EU assistance while respecting sound financial management; recalls the need to determine whether EUSF subsidies have been used in compliance with the principles of sound financial management, including the principle of economy, in order to identify, develop and share best practices and lessons learned with respect to economic affordability;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Understands that disasters and the desire to help people in distress as swiftly as possible may put strain on national administrations; believes, however, that Member States should implement EU legislation on disaster risk prevention and management, which allows the authorities concerned to receive EU assistance while respecting sound financial management; recalls the need to determine whether EUSF subsidies have been used in compliance with the principles of sound financial management, ~~including the principle of economy,~~ in order to identify and share best practices and lessons learned with respect to economic affordability;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Deplores the fact that, as stated in Special report No 3/2008 of the Court of Auditors, payment was usually made one year after applications had been lodged;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Takes the view that the EUSF requires a certain amount of flexibility to enable it to respond to disasters more quickly and effectively; welcomes, therefore, the fact that countries are able to apply for advance payment of funds;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1

verify ~~that~~rigorously that prevention, management and control arrangements have been set up and are being implemented in such a way as to ensure that Union funds are being used and absorbed efficiently and correctly, in accordance with the principles of sound financial management,

source: 585.445

2016/07/13 BUDG 26 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital Α

Α. whereas since its creation in 2002 the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has responded to 69 disasters across Europe; whereas 24 countries have been assisted, receiving disaster relief funds amounting to a total of EUR 3.7 billion and the Fund will be required to contribute still more to the repair of public infrastructures and to compensation for those affected by natural disasters;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital Ε

Ε. whereas the EUSF already existed in the previous programing period of the MFF Regulation, while its annual appropriations have decreased compared with the past; whereas in order to compensate for such a decrease (justified by the overall level of implementation) a carry-over of one year (N+1) has been introduced in the new regulation;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital F

F. whereas exceptionally, in case of insufficient funds available in a given year, the following year’s funds may already be used taking into consideration the annual budgetary ceiling of the fund for both the year when the disaster occurred and for the next year as well;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Points out that use of the yearly threshold proves that the annual level of appropriations, after the new MFF programming period, is adequate;~~deleted

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that, as far as the public is concerned, the European Union Solidarity Fund is one of the most concrete and tangible manifestations of the support that Europe can give to local communities;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes in the new regulation the possibility of making advance payments of up to 10 % of the likely amount of aid, capped at EUR 30 million; considers, however, that the time taken between the application and payment is rather long; recommends further improvements in the assessment phase and subsequent phases facilitating the execution of payments; recommends establishing a legal framework defining the length of the evaluation period;

Amendment 15 #

Helga TRÜPEL, Ernest MARAGALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes in the new regulation the possibility of making advance payments of up to 10 % of the likely amount of aid, capped at EUR 30 million; ~~consider~~deplores, however, the fact that the time taken between the application and payment is rather long; recommends further improvements in the assessment phase and subsequent phases facilitating the execution of payments;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes in~~Notes that the new regulation the possibility of making advance payments of up to 10 % of the likely amount of aid, capped at EUR 30 million; considers, however, that the time taken between the application and payment is rather long; recommends further improvements in the assessment phase and subsequent phases facilitating the execution of payments;

Amendment 17 #

Georgios KYRTSOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, contrary to Article 8(1) and (3) of the EUSF Regulation, the closing procedure for assistance from the fund appears to be remarkably long in some cases: in 2014 the Commission was still closing files from 2005, 2007 and 2010; underlines, therefore, the need to expedite procedures, given that the timely receipt of all aid requested and approved is of utmost importance;

Amendment 18 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nedzhmi ALI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresse~~Regrets that, contrary to Article 8(1) and (3) of the EUSF Regulation, the closing procedure for assistance from the fund ~~appears to be~~is remarkably long in some cases: in 2014 the Commission was still closing files from 2005, 2007 and 2010;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for clear criteria concerning the monitoring visit to the beneficiary states to evaluate the implementation system put in place, as well as monitoring of proper use of resources;

Amendment 2 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nedzhmi ALI

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas since its creation in 2002 the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose and has responded to 69 disasters across Europe:; whereas 24 countries have been assisted, receiving disaster relief funds amounting to a total of EUR 3.7 billion;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. For the sake of facilitating transparent use of funds, calls for a ECA special report on the functioning of the EUSF, especially as the latest report available is from the time before revised EUSF regulation; calls in particular for a study on the possible overlaps in the use of EUSF funds with structural funds and with national schemes;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points out that, despite built-in flexibility (carry-over N+1), substantial funds are at risk of going unused each year; further proposes reflecting on how to limit the non-use of these amounts in the future, taking full account of the inherently variable nature of the subject matter (dependent on the fluctuating number of applications received and/or the financial needs in any given year); evaluate the possibility of supplying unused funds for ex-ante and ex-post activities and actions in areas affected by disasters.

Amendment 22 #

Lefteris CHRISTOFOROU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for the threshold to be revised at 0.1% of the countries' GNI.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Expresses its profound disagreement at the large number of claims rejected, principally owing to the introduction of an excessive damage threshold of 1.5% of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level, and calls for this threshold to be reduced to 0.5 %;

Amendment 24 #

Monika VANA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes that provisions have been introduced in 2014 to strengthen prevention of natural disasters; reminds that the number of extreme weathers leading to natural disasters has increased as a consequence of climate changes; underlines therefore, that efforts must be stepped-up to invest in climate mitigation and adaptation, while giving priority on preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF;

Amendment 25 #

Monika VANA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Recalls and regrets the game of Council in 2014, insisting on shifting EUSF payments to the 2015 budget, while DAB 3 2015 showed that payments could have been easily made from the 2014 budget. In this light regrets that Council has a tendency not to honour EUSF commitments, and prefers to take money away from other programmes rather than mobilising - as foreseen- additional resources by the special instruments. Insists that such shifting of payments should be prevented in the future.

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the EU Solidarity Fund to take immediate measures to ensure full compensation for damage caused by severe weather conditions in Greece during the period 2014-2016;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas since its creation in 2002 the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has responded to 69 disasters across Europe; whereas 24 countries of the 28 Member States have been assisted, receiving disaster relief funds amounting to a total of EUR 3.7 billion;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the 2014 revision of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the EU Solidarity Fund improves and simplifies the procedures; whereas the deadline for the request for aid has been extended, advance payments have been introduced and certain provisions have been made clearer, in line with the numerous requests made over the years by the European Parliament and the local authorities;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the 2014 revision of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the EU Solidarity Fund improves and simplifies the procedures; whereas the deadline for the request for aid has been extended, leaving the Member States to use the contribution within 18 months from the disbursement, advance payments have been introduced and certain provisions have been made clearer;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas until the revision almost all the rejections concerned regional disasters, while the new regulation clarifies rules on eligibility with one single criterion for regional disasters based on a threshold of 1.5 % of regional gross domestic product set at NUTS 2 level;deleted

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas under the provisions of the revised EUSF Regulation the Commission received seven new applications in 2014 and three applications in 2015, compared to eight in 2013 which represents also the yearly average of applications per year;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas the EUSF already existed in the previous programing period of the MFF Regulation, while its annual appropriations have decreased compared with the past; whereas in order to compensate for such a decrease (justified by the overall level of implementation) a carry-over of one year (N+1) has been introduced in the new regulation; regards this decrease as a further demonstration of failure to understand the strategic value of the EU budget, which can play a crucial role in response to risks and emergencies;

source: 587.413

2016/07/20 REGI 109 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

— having regard to Articles 175~~, 212~~ and 22212 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasters and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only emergency and recovery operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;

Amendment 100 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Points to the need to consider what new indicators might be sought in order to go beyond GDP, including for example the Human Development Index and the Regional Social Progress Index;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Welcomes the fact that the seven applications for assistance received ~~after June 2014 (when the new regulation entered into force)~~within the new regulation were accepted by the Commission, and notes that more detailed information will be received for four of them in the 2015 Annual Report, the payments having been made in March and April 2015; awaits the publication of this report, which will hopefully provide a clear picture of the impact the revised provisions have had on the mobilisation of the Fund;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Deplores the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation and expects closures to be carried out more efficiently and transparently under the amended regulation, and in a manner which ensures that the ~~Union’s~~ financial interests of the EU Member States are protected;

Amendment 103 #

Marc JOULAUD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses that the changing security context, marked by an increase in terrorist attacks in Europe, casts new light on the need for and relevance of certain proposals developed by the Commission and the European Parliament in 2005 and 2006, which aim to enlarge the scope of the EUSF so that it can respond to events that have particularly serious consequences for the people affected and that require European solidarity, such as acts of terrorism;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Expresses its profound disagreement at the large number of claims for regional disasters that have been rejected, principally owing to the introduction of an excessive damage threshold of 1.5% of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level, and calls for this threshold to be reduced to 0.5 %;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Demands sustainability to be taken into account for money spent under the EUSF so as to contribute to avoid repetition of disasters; calls on the authorities concerned to prefer eco-system based solutions over technical ones;

Amendment 106 #

Stanislav POLČÁK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Calls on the responsible authorities, given the length of time that elapses between tragic events and the provision of assistance, to try to identify a more flexible mechanism for the provision of assistance and to present a proposal on its introduction;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Deplores the fact that when a number of events, including events of different kinds, have occurred over a longer period of time in an area spanning one or more regions, it is not permitted to bracket those events together;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Calls on the EU Solidarity Fund to take immediate measures to ensure full compensation for damage caused by severe weather conditions in Greece during the period 2014-2016;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council ~~and~~, the Commission, Member States and regional authorities.

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasters and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters but should be extended to cover non-emergency situations also;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the EUSF relates, properly speaking, to natural disasters which have a direct impact on people’s lives in a given affected region;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the difficulty in satisfying the conditions of eligibility for the EUSF is due largely to the fact that an affected region is complicated to define;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas since being established it has been mobilised in connection with 70 disasters linked to a wide range of phenomena, such as flooding, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and, more recently, drought; whereas the EU Solidarity Fund remains one of our strongest symbols of solidarity in times of need;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas since being established it has been mobilised in connection with 70 disasters within 24 Member States and Accession countries, and linked to a wide range of phenomena, such as flooding, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and, more recently, drought;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas since being established it has been mobilised in connection with 70 disasters linked to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as flooding, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and, more recently, drought;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 18 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. believes that the European Union Solidarity Fund is an effective and important tool set up in 2002 in order to show EU solidarity towards disaster- stricken regions within Europe after severe floods in Central Europe;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to ensuring as rapid a response as possible and thus improving the effectiveness of relief funding, even though it has proved insufficient and there is still a significant delay in paying out aid, which means that the effectiveness offered by early assistance is lost;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6

— having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘The European Union Solidarity Fund - Annual Report 2014’ (COM(201~~1)0694~~5)502),

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to ensuring as rapid a response as possible, re-determining its scope, establishing clear criteria for a regional disaster, strengthening disaster prevention and thus improving the effectiveness of relief funding;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to ensuring asmore rapid a response ~~as possible~~within 6 month following the application and thus improving the effectiveness of relief funding;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the instrument must be overhauled once more with a view to ensuring an immediate response, so as to further improve the effectiveness of emergency relief funding;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. believes that the Solidarity Funds has a major role to play in case of naturel disasters and is a valuable financial instrument for Members States facing unforeseen situations;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament strongly supported the proposed changes, most of which it had already called for in previous resolutions; whereas the last reform in general terms, simplified requests for intervention so that aid can be paid out more rapidly;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament ~~strongly~~ supported the proposed changes, most of which it had already called for in previous resolutions;

Amendment 26 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ~~there were special circumstances surrounding the EUSF qualification process in 2014, in that~~ applications received prior to June 2014 (when the revised regulation entered into force) were assessed under the original regulation, whilst applications received afterwards were assessed under the revised regulation;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas women are among the groups that suffer the consequences of natural disasters most acutely, as reflected in many reports by international organisations researching and working in this field; these include the UN report, through the UNISRD (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) as part of the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action to manage the risk of disasters, which states that the gender perspective should be ‘integrated into all disaster risk management policies, plans and decision-making processes, including those related to risk assessment, early warning, information management and education and training’; the World Bank makes the same point, in the studies drawn up by its International Development Association (IDA), which states that ‘women are much more likely than men to be killed in natural disasters’ and that ‘including gender in disaster planning can help avoid costly mistakes and save lives’;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the matter of bracketing events together has been one of the most difficult to deal with; whereas the regulation relates to events considered in isolation, each one, in other words, constituting a single disaster; whereas when a number of events of different kinds have occurred over a longer period of time, they may not be bracketed together; whereas, conversely, several events of the same kind occurring within a relatively short space of time can be treated as one major disaster if they are attributable to the same cause (as opposed to similar causes), even when they have occurred in different parts of a country;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas investments in the prevention of natural disasters are of utmost importance in response to climate change; whereas significant amounts of EU funding have been allocated for investments in the prevention of natural disasters and in risk management strategies, in particular under the ESI Funds;

Amendment 3 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10

— having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 28 November 20153 - European Union Solidarity Fund,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in the context of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions; takes the view that the goals of the Solidarity Fund should be widened to include humanitarian disasters, such as the current refugee crisis, and not only natural disasters; takes the view, likewise, that other man-made crises should also be included, such as industrial accidents or public health crises, while upholding the principle that those causing the damage should pay for it;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in the context of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions; noting that there is, however, considerable room for improvement in areas such as the repair of public infrastructures where necessary and payment of damages to victims of natural disasters;

Amendment 32 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding ~~in the context of~~for local and regional governments and hence for European citizens affected by natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected European Union regions;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in ~~the context~~contribution to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions;

Amendment 34 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that, since the Fund was established natural disasters in the Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity and providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters; points out that the amount allocated to the fund, EUR 500 million a year, will be insufficient owing to the consequences of climate change, which are being reflected in a steady increase in natural disasters and forecasts of a further increase in the coming years; suggests, therefore, that the budget allocated to the Solidarity Fund should be increased accordingly;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that, since the time Fund was established natural disasters in the European Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity and providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters;

Amendment 38 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that, since the Fund was established natural disasters in the Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence mainly of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound ~~and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity and~~instrument for providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that, just as consideration should be given to widening the goals of the Fund to include humanitarian and other disasters, such as industrial accidents and public health crises, the amount of money allocated to the Fund should also be increased to cover these new goals;

Amendment 4 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

- having regard to the UN report, through the UNISRD (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) as part of the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action to manage the risk of disasters,

Amendment 40 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls in addition for the EUSF to be activated in the event not only of natural disasters, but also of disasters caused by human agency;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a maximum allocation of EUR 500 million (at 2011 prices), on top of any amounts remaining from the previous year; points out that this is leading to increased delays in payments, since every time there is an emergency a special procedure must be carried out to allocate and release funds; proposes, in this connection, that the financing of the Solidarity Fund should be brought within the Union budget so that it can be made available more quickly and thereby provide an earlier and more effective response to citizens affected by a disaster;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a maximum allocation of EUR 500 million (at 2011 prices), on top of any amounts remaining from the previous year; criticises the fact that the EUSF lies completely outside the European Union budget and proposes that a minimum amount be earmarked under the budget for immediate action in the event of major natural or man-made disasters;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a maximum allocation of EUR 500 million (at 2011 prices), on top of any amounts remaining from the previous year; regrets that there is a tendency in the Council not to honour EUSF commitments, but to take money away from other programmes rather than mobilising - as foreseen - additional resources by the special instruments; recalls that such shifting of payments should be prevented;

Amendment 44 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a ~~maximum~~n allocation of EUR 500 million (at 2011 prices), which must be increased so as to ensure a more effective response to the consequences of natural disasters, on top of any amounts remaining from the previous year;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the importance of the 2014 revision, which represented a belated response to its repeated calls to improve the effectiveness of aid in order to ensure a rapid response in support of people affected by natural disasters; takes the view, however, that fresh reforms should be undertaken, especially relating to the goals of the fund, eligibility thresholds and matters linked to procedure, such as transparency, simplification, and the inclusion of gender policies among the eligibility criteria;

Amendment 46 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the importance of the 2014 revision, which managed to overcome the blockage in the Council and represented a belated response to its repeated calls to improve the effectiveness of aid in order to ensure a rapid response in support of people affected by natural disasters;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Emphasises the main components of the reform, such as the introduction of advance payments of up to 10 % of the anticipated financial contribution available on demand soon after an application for a financial contribution from the Fund has been submitted to the Commission (upper limit of the contribution set at EUR 30 million), the eligibility of technical assistance directly linked to project operations (a key European Parliament request), the extension of the deadlines by which Member States must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months), as well as the introduction of a six-month deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications; takes the view, however, that this amount is insufficient and that it should be increased to 20%; takes a positive view of the eligibility of technical assistance directly linked to project operations (a key European Parliament request), but considers it vital that the remaining external technical assistance should also be included as an eligible cost, including management, monitoring, information and communication, dealing with complaints and control and auditing; welcomes the fact that the reform envisages extending the deadlines by which Member States must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months), even though it considers the time granted to be insufficient and takes the view that it should be increased to 24 months; points out that the introduction of a six-month deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications allows too much time and efforts should be made to shorten this deadline as far as possible in order to ensure that aid can be brought to the people affected more quickly;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 49 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)

- having regard to the studies produced by the World Bank and its International Development Association (IDA) on the situation for women in disasters,

Amendment 50 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises, however, that, in spite of the introduction of an advance payment mechanism upstream of the standard procedure, beneficiaries still face problems as a result of the length of the overall process, which culminates in payment of the final contribution; emphasises, in this context, the need to speed up the processing of applications and ensure that as many as possible are dealt with by the deadline set; takes the view that it would be of enormous help in this connection if the budget of the EUSF were included in the Union budget; urges that excessive bureaucracy in the procedure be simplified while at the same time stressing the need for maximum transparency in the awarding, management and implementation of funds;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Emphasises, however,~~Deplores the fact that, in spite of the introduction of an advance payment mechanism upstream of the standard procedure, beneficiaries still face problems as a result of the length of the overall process, which culminates in payment of the final contribution; emphasises, in this context, the need to speed up the processing of applications and ensure that as many as possible are dealt with by the deadline set;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that the instrument is generally meeting its objectives well but it was considered not to be sufficiently responsive, as certain criteria for its activation are too complicated or not sufficiently clear;

Amendment 56 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Member States themselves to improve communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities, both in preparing applications and setting up projects;~~deleted

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States themselves to improve communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities, both in preparing applications and setting up projects; proposes, in this connection, that part of the fund be earmarked for the creation of a training programme for staff working for public authorities in each of the Member States who currently hold positions with responsibility for managing emergencies and disasters, in order to enhance their capacity in relation to applying for and managing funds;

Amendment 58 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States themselves to improve communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities, ~~both in~~as well as the process for assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is granted, both at the stage of preparing applications and in setting up projects to counter the effects of natural disasters;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States themselves to improve communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities~~, both in preparing applicat~~ at all stages of implementation in order to ensure that Union's a~~nd setting up project~~ssistance is effective on the ground and to promote sustainable solutions;

Amendment 6 #

Marc JOULAUD

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasters and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters, in spite of the Commission’s 2005 proposal to expand its scope to include industrial and technological disasters, public health emergencies and acts of terrorism;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Considers that EUSF support should be visible to the public; calls on the authorities concerned to provide information on EUSF support without generating additional administrative burden;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Member States and recipient regions or areas to improve communication with the public, that is to say, the people affected;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the clarification of the rules on the eligibility of regional natural disasters, but points out that the final agreement maintains the eligibility threshold at 1.5 % of regional GDP, in line with the Commission proposal, in spite of Parliament’s efforts to reduce it to 1 %; believes that the vulnerability of the outermost regions has been taken into account, with the threshold being reduced to 1 % in their case;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the clarification of the rules on the eligibility of regional natural disasters by the Commission, but points out that the final agreement between the Parliament and the Council maintains the eligibility threshold at 1.5 % of regional GDP, in line with the Commission proposal, in spite of Parliament’s efforts to reduce it to 1 %; ~~believ~~notes that the vulnerability of the outermost regions has been taken into account, with the threshold being reduced to 1 % ~~in their case~~;

Amendment 64 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Welcom~~Notes the clarification of the rules on the eligibility of regional natural disasters, but points out that the final agreement maintains the eligibility threshold at 1.5 % of regional GDP, in line with the Commission proposal, in spite of Parliament’s efforts to reduce it to 1 %; believes that the vulnerability of the outermost regions has been taken into account, with the threshold being reduced to 1 % in their case;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Proposes that the system of economic thresholds for the eligibility of proposals be changed so that the poorest countries and regions have easier access to funding, moving from a proportional system like the one currently in place to a progressive system where the richest countries and regions would have higher thresholds than the poorest countries and regions; stresses that this change would offer genuine support for cohesion policy and represent a fairer and more solidarity-based way of using EU resources; proposes, in this connection, that the following thresholds be used: for serious disasters at state level, a progressive threshold in line with gross national income (GNI) of 0.6% for the highest-income state (or candidate country for accession) and 0.4% for the lowest-income state, applying the corresponding percentage between those figures to the remaining states; recalls that the 0.6% threshold, or estimated cost of over EUR 3 billion in 2011 prices, currently applies to all states; for serious disasters at regional level, a progressive threshold in line with regional gross domestic product (GDP) of 1% for the region with the highest GDP and 0.75% for the region with the lowest GDP, applying the corresponding percentage between those figures to the remaining regions; recalls that a threshold of 1.5% currently applies to all regions;

Amendment 66 #

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission to allow, in certain circumstances, a single application to be submitted jointly by several territories within a single Member State affected by a natural disaster where the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, for the purposes of possible eligibility for EUSF assistance;

Amendment 67 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Proposes that a criterion needs to be introduced for regional disasters affecting NUTS level 3 areas in cases where several neighbouring regions together make up an area equivalent in size to a NUTS level 2 region; suggests that in this case the threshold would be calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the various NUTS level 3 areas affected; points out that disasters evidently affect geographical areas that do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of administrative areas, and it would be absurd if the European Union had no procedural mechanisms to deal fairly with all areas affected by disasters; proposes, further, in keeping with the proposal made by the Committee of the Regions, that the term ‘exceptional cross- border natural disaster’ be used where, as in the above case, several NUTS level 3 regions may belong to different Member States;

Amendment 69 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Points out that women are among the groups that suffer the consequences of natural disasters most acutely, and consequently proposes that gender equality policies and women’s rights be included as criteria for the eligibility of proposals;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to ~~respond to serious natural disaster~~enable the EU to respond to major disasters inside the EU and in countries involved in accession negotiations and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected~~; whereas it funds only~~ by supporting emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Points out~~Acknowledges that the Fund ~~can still only~~ provides assistance for non-insurable damage and does not provide compensation for private losses; emphasises that long-term measures, such as sustainable reconstruction or economic development and prevention activities, are ~~not admissible, but may be~~ eligible for financing under other Union instruments, in particular the European structural and investment funds (ESI Funds);

Amendment 71 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)

(1) Calls for provision to be made for ad hoc adjustment and amendment of operational programmes under the Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) with a view to creating synergy with EUSF resources in affected areas;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)

(1) Believes that incentives for private insurance should be considered with a view to encouraging people also to insure themselves privately against damage caused by natural disasters;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Strongly criticises the fact that when the scale of a disaster is assessed, only direct damage is taken into consideration, without factoring in indirect damage, for example the revenue and production lost because economic activity has been halted, lower social security contributions, and the loss of future harvests;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Member States to optimise the use of EU funding, in particular the ESI Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring and to mitigate their effects;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to forestalling~~, as far as possible,~~ the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term development of reconstruction projects; maintains that whenever the EUSF is to be used, the Member State concerned should formally undertake to carry out all measures necessary for disaster prevention and the sustainable reconstruction of the areas affected; calls, when synergies are brought into play, for the process of using funds in combination to be simplified as far as possible in administrative terms in order to avert the red tape likely to arise from the fact of tapping several sources of financing at the same time; considers that such simplification should be implemented in accordance with a single pattern laid down at European level;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to forestalling, as far as possible, the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term development of reconstruction projects; points out that rural development programmes cofunded by the EU could also provide support in situations arising from adverse climatic conditions;

Amendment 77 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to ~~forestalling~~prevent, as far as possible, the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to forestalling, as far as possible, the impact of ~~natural~~ disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term development of reconstruction projects;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Welcomes the provisions introduced in 2014 to strengthen prevention of natural disasters; underlines that efforts must be stepped-up to consider prevention as a horizontal task; calls for preventive measures following the eco-system based approach to be identified as priority when mitigating the consequences of disaster under the EUSF;

Amendment 8 #

Ángela VALLINA, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Barbara SPINELLI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to ~~serious~~major natural disasters and to extraordinary regional disasters, to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas it funds only emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to i~~mprove~~ntroduce mandatory procedures to ensure maximum transparency and calls for guaranteed public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of the application to project closure;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point 1 (new)

(1) Considers it important to set up a fund for the specific purpose of restoring cultural heritage sites damaged by natural disasters;

Amendment 82 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that 13 new applications were received in 2014, and draws attention to the special circumstances obtaining in that year, in which six of these applications~~, submitted prior to June 2014 (when the revised regulation entered into force),~~ were assessed under the old regulation, while the remaining seven applicationst were assessed under the revised regulation;

Amendment 83 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned, a realistic eligibility threshold should be set for regional natural disasters, including at cross-border level in the case of major floods, serious cases of accidental pollution, earthquakes and forest fires;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned, a realistic ~~eligibility~~ thresholds should be set ~~for regional natural disaster~~, in each instance taking into account the particular level of socio-economic development in the region affected, determined according to the allocation criteria for the ESI Funds;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned, a realistic eligibility threshold as well as respective definitions should be set for regional natural disasters;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Emphasises that, following the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters~~Recalls that two applications have been rejected under the former EUSF Regulation, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned~~, a realistic~~; therefore welcomes the revised EUSF Regulation in which an adequate eligibility threshold ~~should~~has been set for regional natural disasters;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Emphasises that, following~~Regrets the Commission’s rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters in 2014, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned,; Emphasizes that a realistic eligibility threshold should be set for regional natural disasters;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that, following the Commission’s regrettable rejection of two applications for recognition as extraordinary regional disasters, on the grounds that the disasters in question could not be deemed ‘extraordinary’, in spite of the fact that they caused serious damage and had direct repercussions for the economic and social development of the regions concerned, a realistic eligibility threshold should be set for regional natural disasters;

Amendment 89 #

Salvatore CICU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. In order to improve the EU responsiveness and support towards the affected population, calls on the Commission to put forward a Proposal for an amendment of the current Regulation to the co-legislators, with a view to increasing the advance payments to be made available fast after the submission of the application by the concerned Member State from 10% to 12 % of the anticipated financial contribution and to reduce the deadline, by which the Commission must respond to applications, from 6 months to 15 weeks;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural disasters and to demonstrate solidarity with the European regions affected; whereas ~~it funds only~~this is a useful instrument which helps to fund emergency operations carried out by governments following natural disasters;

Amendment 90 #