Activities of Notis MARIAS related to 2016/2045(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
The European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment (A8-0341/2016 - Salvatore Cicu) EL
The European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment - Situation in Italy after the earthquakes (debate) EL
Amendments (26)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital Α
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 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital Ε
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up in 2002 in reaction to that summer’s serious flooding in Central Europe, to respond to serious natural 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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 4
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 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes in the new regulation the possibility of making advance payments of up to 10 % of the likely amount of aid, capped at EUR 30 million; considerdeplores, 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 8
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
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 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
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 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
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 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
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 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
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 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in the context of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidarity with affected regions; 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 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that, since the Fund was established natural disasters in the Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity and providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters and immediate compensation payments for damage caused by natural disasters;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the EUSF is financed outside the European Union budget, with a maximumn 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 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomNotes 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 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out, in that connection, the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to forestalling, as far as possible, the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation and the long-term development of reconstruction projects; points out that rural development programmes cofunded by the EU could also provide support in situations arising from adverse climatic conditions;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
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 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
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;