BETA


2016/2045(INI) European Union Solidarity Fund: assessment

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI CICU Salvatore (icon: PPE PPE) PICULA Tonino (icon: S&D S&D), PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr (icon: ECR ECR), VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs (icon: ALDE ALDE), ROPĖ Bronis (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), D'AMATO Rosa (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion BUDG CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris (icon: PPE PPE) Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI (icon: ALDE ALDE), Bernd KÖLMEL (icon: ECR ECR), Sophie MONTEL (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion CONT VALLI Marco (icon: EFDD EFDD) Nedzhmi ALI (icon: ALDE ALDE), Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ (icon: PPE PPE), Derek VAUGHAN (icon: S&D S&D)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2017/03/27
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2016/12/01
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2016/12/01
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 589 votes to 13, with 42 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment.

Utility of the Funds: Members recalled that since it was established, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose, having mobilised, in total, EUR 3.8 billion in connection with more than 70 disasters within 24 beneficiary states and accession countries , and has been used in response to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, flooding, forest fires, storms and, more recently, drought.

In line with the numerous requests made over the years by Parliament, the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to improving and simplifying the procedures, and (i) ensuring more rapid response within six weeks following application; (ii) re-determining its scope; (iii) establishing clear criteria for a regional disaster; (iv) strengthening disaster prevention and risk management strategies.

A new revision of the Fund is foreseen in the proposed Omnibus Regulation proposed by the Commission on 14 September 2016 with a view to improving the readiness and effectiveness of emergency relief funding.

Improve rapid reaction : Parliament welcomed the importance of the 2014 revision as well as its main components, such as:

the introduction of advance payments , whereby up to 10 % of the anticipated financial contribution is available on demand soon after an application for a financial contribution from the Fund has been submitted to the Commission (capped at EUR 30 million); the eligibility of costs relating to the preparation and implementation of the emergency and recovery operations (a major Parliament request); the extension of the deadlines by which eligible states must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months); the introduction of a six-weeks deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications; new provisions on the prevention of natural disasters and improvements in procedures with regard to sound financial management.

The resolution stated, in this context, the need to put forward the application as soon as possible after a disaster, as well as for further improvements in the assessment phase, and in subsequent phases , in order to facilitate the execution of payments.

Transparency and cooperation : Members called on the Member States and the Commission to:

improve their means of communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities , both when assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is requested and when preparing applications, as well as when implementing projects to counter the effects of natural disasters; improve transparency, and to guarantee public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of an application to project closure.

Prevention and complementarity : Parliament called on the Member States to optimise the use of existing EU funding, in particular the five European Structural Investment Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring. It pointed to the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to preventing the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation, and long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects.

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.

Members stressed that efforts to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation must be stepped up, taking into account preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF. They called on the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies.

In the light of future reforms , the Commission is called upon to:

allow single applications to be allowed to be submitted jointly by several eligible states affected by a natural disaster at cross-border level, whereby the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, and that indirect damages be taken into consideration in the assessment of the applications; consider: taking into account the possibility of increasing the advance payments threshold from 10 % to 15 %, as well as of shortening deadlines for the processing of applications from six to four weeks; (ii) the possibility of setting the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters at 1 % of regional GDP , and of taking into account, when assessing the requests, the level of socio-economic development of the regions affected.

Lastly, Parliament deplored the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation, and expected 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 are protected.

Documents
2016/12/01
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2016/11/30
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2016/11/17
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Salvatore CICU (EPP, IT) on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment.

Members recalled that since it was established, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose, having mobilised, in total, EUR 3.8 billion in connection with more than 70 disasters within 24 beneficiary states and accession countries , and has been used in response to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, flooding, forest fires, storms and, more recently, drought.

The instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to improving and simplifying the procedures, and ensuring more rapid response, in line with the numerous requests made over the years by Parliament. A new revision of the Fund is foreseen in the proposed Omnibus Regulation proposed by the Commission on 14 September 2016 with a view to improving the readiness and effectiveness of emergency relief funding.

Improve rapid reaction : while emphasising the importance of the 2014 revision, Members emphasised 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 from application to payment of the final contribution.

The report stated, in this context, the need to put forward the application as soon as possible after a disaster, as well as for further improvements in the assessment phase, and in subsequent phases , in order to facilitate the execution of payments.

Transparency and cooperation : Member States should improve their means of communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities , both when assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is requested and when preparing applications, as well as when implementing projects to counter the effects of natural disasters.

Members called on the Commission and the Members States to improve transparency, and to guarantee public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of an application to project closure.

Prevention and complementarity : the report called on the Member States to optimise the use of existing EU funding, in particular the five European Structural Investment Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring. It pointed to the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to preventing the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation, and long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects.

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.

Members stressed that efforts to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation must be stepped up, taking into account preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF. They called on the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies.

In the light of future reforms, the Commission is called upon to:

allow single applications to be allowed to be submitted jointly by several eligible states affected by a natural disaster at cross-border level, whereby the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, and that indirect damages be taken into consideration in the assessment of the applications; consider: taking into account the possibility of increasing the advance payments threshold from 10 % to 15 %, as well as of shortening deadlines for the processing of applications from six to four weeks; (ii) the possibility of setting the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters at 1 % of regional GDP , and of taking into account, when assessing the requests, the level of socio-economic development of the regions affected.

Members deplored the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation, and expected 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 are protected.

Documents
2016/11/09
   EP - Vote in committee
2016/09/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/07/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2016/07/15
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/06/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/04/25
   EP - CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2016/04/14
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2016/03/21
   EP - VALLI Marco (EFDD) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2015/11/12
   EP - CICU Salvatore (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0341/2016 - Salvatore Cicu - Vote unique #

2016/12/01 Outcome: +: 589, 0: 42, -: 13
DE IT FR PL ES GB RO BE PT CZ BG AT HU NL SE FI SK HR LT IE DK SI LV EE MT LU EL CY
Total
82
65
61
49
42
58
24
21
20
17
16
16
16
23
16
13
12
11
9
9
9
8
7
6
6
5
18
4
icon: PPE PPE
188

Ireland PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
165
3

Netherlands S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Greece S&D

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2
2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

2

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41
4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
38

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1
icon: ENF ENF
35

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
34

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
14

Germany NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

1

France NI

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3

Hungary NI

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
164 2016/2045(INI)
2016/06/20 CONT 29 amendments...
source: 585.445
2016/07/13 BUDG 26 amendments...
source: 587.413
2016/07/20 REGI 109 amendments...
source: 585.596

History

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

committees/0/shadows/3
name
VALLINA Ángela
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE582.284
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-582284_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE583.964&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AD-583964_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE585.596
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-585596_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE585.432&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-585432_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
2016-11-17T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0341_EN.html title: A8-0341/2016
summary
events/2
date
2016-11-17T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0341_EN.html title: A8-0341/2016
summary
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161130&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2016-11-30-TOC_EN.html
events/5
date
2016-12-01T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0464_EN.html title: T8-0464/2016
summary
events/5
date
2016-12-01T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0464_EN.html title: T8-0464/2016
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: CICU Salvatore date: 2015-11-12T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-11-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CICU Salvatore group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris date: 2016-04-25T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: VALLI Marco date: 2016-03-21T00:00:00 group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2016-03-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VALLI Marco group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
docs/4/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0341&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0341_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0464
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0464_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-11-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CICU Salvatore group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-11-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CICU Salvatore group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
activities
  • date: 2016-04-14T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2016-04-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris body: EP responsible: False committee: CONT date: 2016-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: EFD name: VALLI Marco body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PICULA Tonino group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs group: GUE/NGL name: VALLINA Ángela group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-11-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: CICU Salvatore
  • date: 2016-11-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2016-04-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris body: EP responsible: False committee: CONT date: 2016-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: EFD name: VALLI Marco body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PICULA Tonino group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs group: GUE/NGL name: VALLINA Ángela group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-11-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: CICU Salvatore
  • date: 2016-11-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0341&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0341/2016 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2016-11-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161130&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0464 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0464/2016 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: CREȚU Corina
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2015-11-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CICU Salvatore group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
BUDG
date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets
rapporteur
group: EPP name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
CONT
date
2016-03-21T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
group: EFD name: VALLI Marco
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2016-03-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VALLI Marco group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
committees/2
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2015-11-12T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: EPP name: CICU Salvatore
docs
  • date: 2016-06-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE582.284 title: PE582.284 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2016-07-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE583.964&secondRef=02 title: PE583.964 committee: CONT type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2016-07-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE585.596 title: PE585.596 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2016-09-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE585.432&secondRef=02 title: PE585.432 committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2017-03-27T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=27838&j=0&l=en title: SP(2017)128 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2016-04-14T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-11-09T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-11-17T00:00:00 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=A8-2016-0341&language=EN title: A8-0341/2016 summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Salvatore CICU (EPP, IT) on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment. Members recalled that since it was established, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose, having mobilised, in total, EUR 3.8 billion in connection with more than 70 disasters within 24 beneficiary states and accession countries , and has been used in response to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, flooding, forest fires, storms and, more recently, drought. The instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to improving and simplifying the procedures, and ensuring more rapid response, in line with the numerous requests made over the years by Parliament. A new revision of the Fund is foreseen in the proposed Omnibus Regulation proposed by the Commission on 14 September 2016 with a view to improving the readiness and effectiveness of emergency relief funding. Improve rapid reaction : while emphasising the importance of the 2014 revision, Members emphasised 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 from application to payment of the final contribution. The report stated, in this context, the need to put forward the application as soon as possible after a disaster, as well as for further improvements in the assessment phase, and in subsequent phases , in order to facilitate the execution of payments. Transparency and cooperation : Member States should improve their means of communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities , both when assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is requested and when preparing applications, as well as when implementing projects to counter the effects of natural disasters. Members called on the Commission and the Members States to improve transparency, and to guarantee public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of an application to project closure. Prevention and complementarity : the report called on the Member States to optimise the use of existing EU funding, in particular the five European Structural Investment Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring. It pointed to the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to preventing the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation, and long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects. 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. Members stressed that efforts to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation must be stepped up, taking into account preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF. They called on the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies. In the light of future reforms, the Commission is called upon to: allow single applications to be allowed to be submitted jointly by several eligible states affected by a natural disaster at cross-border level, whereby the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, and that indirect damages be taken into consideration in the assessment of the applications; consider: taking into account the possibility of increasing the advance payments threshold from 10 % to 15 %, as well as of shortening deadlines for the processing of applications from six to four weeks; (ii) the possibility of setting the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters at 1 % of regional GDP , and of taking into account, when assessing the requests, the level of socio-economic development of the regions affected. Members deplored the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation, and expected 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 are protected.
  • date: 2016-11-30T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161130&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=27838&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 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=P8-TA-2016-0464 title: T8-0464/2016 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 589 votes to 13, with 42 abstentions, a resolution on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment. Utility of the Funds: Members recalled that since it was established, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose, having mobilised, in total, EUR 3.8 billion in connection with more than 70 disasters within 24 beneficiary states and accession countries , and has been used in response to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, flooding, forest fires, storms and, more recently, drought. In line with the numerous requests made over the years by Parliament, the instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to improving and simplifying the procedures, and (i) ensuring more rapid response within six weeks following application; (ii) re-determining its scope; (iii) establishing clear criteria for a regional disaster; (iv) strengthening disaster prevention and risk management strategies. A new revision of the Fund is foreseen in the proposed Omnibus Regulation proposed by the Commission on 14 September 2016 with a view to improving the readiness and effectiveness of emergency relief funding. Improve rapid reaction : Parliament welcomed the importance of the 2014 revision as well as its main components, such as: the introduction of advance payments , whereby up to 10 % of the anticipated financial contribution is available on demand soon after an application for a financial contribution from the Fund has been submitted to the Commission (capped at EUR 30 million); the eligibility of costs relating to the preparation and implementation of the emergency and recovery operations (a major Parliament request); the extension of the deadlines by which eligible states must make applications (12 weeks after the first damage) and set up the project (18 months); the introduction of a six-weeks deadline by which the Commission must respond to applications; new provisions on the prevention of natural disasters and improvements in procedures with regard to sound financial management. The resolution stated, in this context, the need to put forward the application as soon as possible after a disaster, as well as for further improvements in the assessment phase, and in subsequent phases , in order to facilitate the execution of payments. Transparency and cooperation : Members called on the Member States and the Commission to: improve their means of communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities , both when assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is requested and when preparing applications, as well as when implementing projects to counter the effects of natural disasters; improve transparency, and to guarantee public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of an application to project closure. Prevention and complementarity : Parliament called on the Member States to optimise the use of existing EU funding, in particular the five European Structural Investment Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring. It pointed to the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to preventing the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation, and long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects. 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. Members stressed that efforts to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation must be stepped up, taking into account preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF. They called on the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies. In the light of future reforms , the Commission is called upon to: allow single applications to be allowed to be submitted jointly by several eligible states affected by a natural disaster at cross-border level, whereby the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, and that indirect damages be taken into consideration in the assessment of the applications; consider: taking into account the possibility of increasing the advance payments threshold from 10 % to 15 %, as well as of shortening deadlines for the processing of applications from six to four weeks; (ii) the possibility of setting the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters at 1 % of regional GDP , and of taking into account, when assessing the requests, the level of socio-economic development of the regions affected. Lastly, Parliament deplored the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation, and expected 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 are protected.
  • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 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: CREȚU Corina
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
REGI/8/06164
New
  • REGI/8/06164
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.70.11 Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund
New
3.70.11
Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20161130&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0464 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0464/2016
activities/4/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/3/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/2/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Salvatore CICU (EPP, IT) on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment.

    Members recalled that since it was established, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) has served a very useful purpose, having mobilised, in total, EUR 3.8 billion in connection with more than 70 disasters within 24 beneficiary states and accession countries, and has been used in response to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, flooding, forest fires, storms and, more recently, drought.

    The instrument was comprehensively overhauled in 2014 with a view to improving and simplifying the procedures, and ensuring more rapid response, in line with the numerous requests made over the years by Parliament. A new revision of the Fund is foreseen in the proposed Omnibus Regulation proposed by the Commission on 14 September 2016 with a view to improving the readiness and effectiveness of emergency relief funding.

    Improve rapid reaction: while emphasising the importance of the 2014 revision, Members emphasised 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 from application to payment of the final contribution.

    The report stated, in this context, the need to put forward the application as soon as possible after a disaster, as well as for further improvements in the assessment phase, and in subsequent phases, in order to facilitate the execution of payments.

    Transparency and cooperation: Member States should improve their means of communication and cooperation with local and regional authorities, both when assessing eligible damage for which EUSF financial support is requested and when preparing applications, as well as when implementing projects to counter the effects of natural disasters.

    Members called on the Commission and the Members States to improve transparency, and to guarantee public access to information throughout the assistance mobilisation process, from the submission of an application to project closure.

    Prevention and complementarity: the report called on the Member States to optimise the use of existing EU funding, in particular the five European Structural Investment Funds, for investments to prevent natural disasters from occurring. It pointed to the importance of developing synergies between the various Union funds and policies with a view to preventing the impact of natural disasters and, in cases where the EUSF is activated, to guaranteeing the consolidation, and long-term sustainable development of reconstruction projects.

    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.

    Members stressed that efforts to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation must be stepped up, taking into account preventive measures when supporting reconstruction and reforestation under the EUSF. They called on the Member States to establish risk prevention and risk management strategies.

    In the light of future reforms, the Commission is called upon to:

    • allow single applications to be allowed to be submitted jointly by several eligible states affected by a natural disaster at cross-border level, whereby the cause of the disaster is the same and the effects occur at the same time, and that indirect damages be taken into consideration in the assessment of the applications;
    • consider: taking into account the possibility of increasing the advance payments threshold from 10 % to 15 %, as well as of shortening deadlines for the processing of applications from six to four weeks; (ii) the possibility of setting the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters at 1 % of regional GDP, and of taking into account, when assessing the requests, the level of socio-economic development of the regions affected.

    Members deplored the fact that the procedures for assessing implementation and closure reports took so long under the old regulation, and expected 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 are protected.

activities/3
date
2016-11-30T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/4/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/1
date
2016-11-09T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
activities/2
date
2016-11-17T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0341&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0341/2016
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
activities/3/date
Old
2016-11-21T00:00:00
New
2016-12-01T00:00:00
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/1
date
2016-11-21T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/1
date
2016-10-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/0/committees/0/date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris
activities/1
date
2016-10-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
committees/0/date
2016-04-25T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: CHRISTOFOROU Lefteris
activities/0/committees/2/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
VALLINA Ángela
committees/2/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
VALLINA Ángela
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
CREȚU Corina
activities/0/committees/1/date
2016-03-21T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: EFD name: VALLI Marco
committees/1/date
2016-03-21T00:00:00
committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: EFD name: VALLI Marco
activities
  • date: 2016-04-14T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PICULA Tonino group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-11-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: CICU Salvatore
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
  • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PICULA Tonino group: ECR name: PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr group: ALDE name: VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs group: Verts/ALE name: ROPĖ Bronis group: EFD name: D'AMATO Rosa responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2015-11-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: CICU Salvatore
links
other
    procedure
    dossier_of_the_committee
    REGI/8/06164
    reference
    2016/2045(INI)
    title
    European Union Solidarity Fund: assessment
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Awaiting committee decision
    subtype
    Initiative
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject
    3.70.11 Natural disasters, Solidarity Fund