Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | REGI | OMARJEE Younous ( GUE/NGL) | SCHMIEDTBAUER Simone ( EPP), CARVALHAIS Isabel ( S&D), PEKKARINEN Mauri ( Renew), D'AMATO Rosa ( Verts/ALE), KRAH Maximilian ( ID), KRUK Elżbieta ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | RESSLER Karlo ( EPP) | Henrike HAHN ( Verts/ALE), Mauri PEKKARINEN ( RE), Silvia MODIG ( GUE/NGL), Hélène LAPORTE ( ID) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
The European Parliament adopted by 668 votes to 10, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on the review of the European Union Solidarity Fund.
The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), set up following the major floods in Central Europe in 2002, provides financial assistance to Member States and acceding countries hit by major natural or regional disasters or public health emergencies.
Parliament expressed its concern that extreme weather events and natural disasters will only multiply and intensify with climate change. Major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) are now a common occurrence.
Members believe it is essential to channel aid and funds to the affected regions as quickly, easily and flexibly as possible. They stressed that synergies between the EUSF and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the ERDF climate change adaptation component and territorial cooperation programmes are essential for building a comprehensive response and resilience package.
Disaster management, damage assessment and simplification of procedures
In the context of a future reform of the EUSF, the Commission is called on to continue its work to simplify and speed up the application procedure for Member States, for example by paying particular attention to simplifying applications for activation of the EUSF across several regions in the context of cross-border disasters.
Members also considered it essential to invest in disaster risk prevention and management in the EU by building preventative infrastructure. In this respect, they recommended that Member States, together with the Commission, put in place disaster prevention and management plans that allow for accurate and rapid damage assessment.
Given that climate change and the increase in natural disasters are making territories and regions increasingly vulnerable, Members called on the Commission to consider revising the EUSF so as to take better account of regional disasters. They also stressed the role of ERDF programmes, in synergy with rural development programmes, in risk prevention and mitigation.
The resolution stressed the need for increased capacity building through technical and administrative support to beneficiary countries to help them develop long-term management strategies to reduce the impact of major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies.
The Commission is invited to devote particular attention in a future revision of the EUSF to the outermost regions, islands, mountainous or sparsely populated regions, and all territories particularly prone to the risks of natural disasters.
Financial resources and speed of allocation
Members expressed concern about the merger between the EUSF and the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR), as it makes the funding possibilities from the EUSF, which are now linked to the needs of the EAR, uncertain, for a joint annual budget of EUR 1.2 billion (only slightly higher than the one proposed by the Commission in May 2020 for the Fund alone).
Parliament suggested that the management of the new reserve should be closely monitored to see whether the funding amount and allocation key provided for in this new financial instrument meet the needs of the EUSF, in view of the extension of its scope and the scale and proliferation of emergencies resulting, in particular from major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies.
Members welcomed the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in March 2020 increased the value of advance payments from 10 % to 25 % of the anticipated financial contribution and the upper limit from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million. They pointed out, in this context, the importance of advance payments for increasing the effectiveness of aid programmes.
Risk prevention and quality of reconstruction
Parliament called for the criteria for determining the ‘eligibility’ of projects for support from the Fund to take greater account of the latest risk prevention principles and for the principle of ‘ build back better ’ to be fully integrated into Article 3 of the EUSF Regulation.
Members also believe that extending the scope of the EUSF to tackle the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic requires an increase in its budget.
Visibility of the Fund's financial assistance
Parliament stressed the importance of informing the public about the tangible benefits brought about by the EUSF in order to increase citizens’ trust in EU tools and programmes. It called on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility of the fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities, in parallel to making the rapid response and delivery of aid a priority.
The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Younous OMARJEE (GUE/NGL, FR) on the review of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF).
The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), created in 2002, reflects the desire to show solidarity with people living in regions of the Union affected by major natural or regional disasters or major public health emergencies.
The regulatory framework of the EUSF was revised in 2014 to simplify procedures, shorten the response time after applications are submitted, clarify the eligibility criteria for applications for assistance in regional disasters, extend the implementation period and introduce advance payments, as requested by Parliament on various occasions. Further progress was made in March 2020, notably in increasing the level of advance payments and simplifying the EUSF allocation process.
Disaster management, damage assessment and simplification of procedures
Although the reform of the regulation in 2014 contributed to the extension of the time frame for preparing and submitting an application for an EUSF financial contribution from 10 to 12 weeks, a substantial proportion of cases still require updates, resulting in delays in accessing the grants. For this reason, Members considered that the Commission should provide simplified guidance on application requirements and, in so doing, reduce the administrative burden.
Members also considered it essential to invest in disaster risk prevention and management in the EU by building preventative infrastructure. In this respect, they recommended that Member States, together with the Commission, put in place disaster prevention and management plans that allow for accurate and rapid damage assessment.
Given that climate change and the increase in natural disasters are making territories and regions increasingly vulnerable, Members called on the Commission to consider revising the EUSF so as to take better account of regional disasters. They also stressed the role of ERDF programmes, in synergy with rural development programmes, in risk prevention and mitigation.
The report stressed the need for increased capacity building through technical and administrative support to beneficiary countries to help them develop long-term management strategies to reduce the impact of major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies.
The Commission is invited to devote particular attention in a future revision of the EUSF to the outermost regions, islands, mountainous or sparsely populated regions, and all territories particularly prone to the risks of natural disasters.
Financial resources and speed of allocation
Members expressed concern about the merger between the EUSF and the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR), as it makes the funding possibilities from the EUSF, which are now linked to the needs of the EAR, uncertain, for a joint annual budget of EUR 1.2 billion (only slightly higher than the one proposed by the Commission in May 2020 for the Fund alone).
The report suggested that the management of the new reserve should be closely monitored to see whether the funding amount and allocation key provided for in this new financial instrument meet the needs of the EUSF, in view of the extension of its scope and the scale and proliferation of emergencies resulting, in particular, from major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies.
Risk prevention and quality of reconstruction
Members called for the criteria for determining projects that are ‘eligible’ for assistance from the fund to take greater account of the latest risk prevention principles and asks for the ‘Build Back Better’ principle to be fully integrated in Article 3 of the EUSF Regulation.
The Commission is called on to strengthen and simplify the synergies between the EUSF and the cohesion policy funds, as well as the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, with a view to ensuring effective and structured risk management for reconstruction projects in the short, medium and long term, not only through the construction of sustainable, energy-efficient and resource-efficient infrastructure, but also through the deployment of preventive measures.
Members also considered that extending the scope of the EUSF to combat the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic requires an increase in its budget.
Visibility of the Fund's financial assistance
The report stressed the importance of informing the public about the tangible benefits brought about by the EUSF in order to increase citizens’ trust in EU tools and programmes. It called on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility of the fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities, in parallel to making the rapid response and delivery of aid a priority.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)507
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0220/2021
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0052/2021
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE663.294
- Committee draft report: PE661.876
- Committee opinion: PE652.609
- Committee opinion: PE652.609
- Committee draft report: PE661.876
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE663.294
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)507
Activities
- Dita CHARANZOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (2)
Amendments | Dossier |
173 |
2020/2087(INI)
2020/06/26
BUDG
21 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Points out that due to climate change, natural disasters will become more and more violent and more and more recurrent; questions, however, whether the fund is adequately adapted to the future consequences of climate change, while stressing that the EUSF is only a curative instrument and that climate change requires primarily a preventive policy in line with the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Requests that the Commission propose a revision of the Regulation, which should enter into force as early as
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Highlights that the use of the EUSF has encouraged policy learning in national and local authorities to assess their larger disaster risk management;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Notes the significant potential synergies between the EUSF and other Union funds and policies; asks that these synergies are used to their full extent;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5 c. Requests the Commission to put into place mechanisms to implement EUSF interventions in line with the “Build Back Better” principle for disaster risk management, according to which the recovery phase is seen as a determinant opportunity to maximise resilience to natural disasters and upgrade infrastructure to contemporary standards, rather than simply restoring the conditions which were in place prior to the occurrence of the event;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5 d. Calls on the Commission to modify Article 3 of EUSF Regulation 2012/2002, as amended by Regulation 661/2014, to allow the reconstruction and rebuilding to newer and more robust standards, as well as to improve the functionality and resilience of the assets affected by the disaster;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Asks the Commission to set up and manage a network of EUSF coordinators from the Member States with the aim of sharing good practices and practical advice on the submission of applications;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Deplores the fact that the EUSF is not very well known by citizens; urges the Commission to boost public media coverage of the Fund and to assess the possibility of providing guidelines on visibility to beneficiaries to increase awareness about the very real benefits that the EU has already brought to millions of citizens through the Fund;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6 c. Notes that the EUSF is the most concrete and tangible manifestation of the support that the EU can give to regions and local communities in case of natural disasters; nevertheless, points out that on the basis of the evidence elicited through Eurobarometer surveys, only 15% of the EU population is likely to be fully aware of the use of the Fund at country level; therefore, reiterates the importance of communicating to the public the tangible benefits brought about by the EUSF and calls on the concerned regional and local authorities to implement communication strategies or initiatives to clearly highlight to citizens the specific cases in which support against the effects of natural disasters is provided by the EUSF;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6 d. Asks the Commission, in the framework of the revision of the Regulation, to provide for an obligation for the beneficiary country to communicate on the EU support for the implemented operations;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Stresses that due to climate change, islands and coastal regions are particularly at risk of being affected by natural disasters; questions, however, whether the current EUSF is appropriately focused on climate adaptation for those particularly fragile territories;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 e (new) 6 e. Calls on the Commission to step up communication efforts to improve the public awareness of the interventions done with the financing under the EUSF;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 f (new) 6 f. Stresses that the awarding, management and implementation of the EUSF grants should be as transparent as possible, and that the grants need to be used in line with the principles of sound financial management.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes, while acknowledging that the EUSF is not an instrument for rapid intervention in disaster situations, that aid disbursement has speeded up since the 2014 reform; requests, nevertheless, that the Commission provide technical assistance to the national authorities in the application process, ensure that the assessment of applications is done in a timely manner and accelerate payments;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Underlines that rapid disbursement of funds via the introduction of advance payments, as part of the 2014 reform, has proven to have a beneficial impact on effectiveness of the EUSF, in particular in regions and municipalities with limited alternative funding sources;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Strongly supports the recent reform of the advance payment system, which raises the level of advances from 10 % to 25 % of the expected contribution and from a maximum of EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million; questions, however, whether the reform addresses all the hurdles that are currently keeping Member States from requesting advance payments, in light of the low application rate; asks the Commission to reflect on additional ways to promote this option, in a dialogue with Member States authorities; urges the Commission to disburse advance payments for COVID-19 applications as fast as possible;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of 27 May 2020 to increase the maximum annual amount of the EUSF under the next long-term budget to EUR 1 billion (at 2018 prices), which has been Parliament’s position from the outset; questions, however, whether this amount will be sufficient to cover all of the eligible applications in 2020, taking into account the Fund’s widened scope and the rapid evolution of climate change, which makes natural disasters more frequent and unpredictable;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of 27 May 2020 to increase the maximum annual amount of the EUSF under the next long-term budget to EUR 1 billion (at 2018 prices), which has been Parliament’s position from the outset; questions, however, whether this amount will be sufficient to cover all of the eligible applications in
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Notes the enormous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economies and public health systems of the Member States; believes that the next MFF and Next Generation EU should entail a further increase in the amount allocated to the EUSF, which may not be sufficient to cover all the 2020 eligible applications, due to the COVID-19 crisis; therefore, requests the Commission to increase the maximum annual amount of the EUSF to EUR 2 billion (at 2018 prices); underlines that such an increase would be essential for rapidly assisting people affected by a major public health emergency, including by providing medical help, and preventing, monitoring or controlling the spread of disease;
source: 653.968
2021/02/03
REGI
152 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 — having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund and its subsequent amendments of 15 May 2014 and 20 March 20201 , _________________ 1 OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, the European Parliament pointed out that solidarity among the Member States
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to ensure the dissemination of good practices with regard to governance and institutional
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to ensure the dissemination of good practices with regard to governance and institutional coordination structures in disaster situations and to ensure a qualitative analysis of the measures undertaken with regard to prevention in the framework of ESI Funds by the Member States which were also recipient of EUSF in the same affected areas;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Recalls the importance of the principles enshrined also in article 8 of the EUSF regulation, which states that the implementation report by each beneficiary Member State should fully detail the preventive measures, taken or proposed, to limit future damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar natural disasters, including the use of Union Structural and Investment Funds for this purpose;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Points to the difficulties faced by beneficiary countries when it comes to determining the precise amount of damage in a very short period of time and suggests that the Commission consider alternative simplified methods for determining how much the Fund should contribute, also in order to minimise the potential for errors and further delays;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Points to the difficulties faced by beneficiary countries when it comes to determining the precise amount of damage in a very short period of time and suggests that the Commission
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws particular attention to the situation of local authorities which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with capacity-building and increased operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws particular attention to the situation of the local authorities of the sovereign Member States which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws particular attention to the situation of local authorities which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased technical and operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Draws particular attention to the situation of local authorities which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased operational support, in particular administrative support; calls on the Member States to improve communications with local and regional authorities in the successive phases of evaluation, preparation of applications and project implementation, with a view speeding up administrative procedures;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, Parliament pointed out that solidarity among
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Highlights that the use of the EUSF has encouraged policy learning in national and local authorities, leading them to assess their broader disaster risk management measures; Draws particular attention to the situation of local authorities which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Calls on the Commission to consider adapting the EUSF as far as possible to the regions that are the most vulnerable to natural
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Notes that drought is a recurrent feature of the European climate that affects considerable fractions of the European population each year and that available studies, including reports from the European Environmental agency, project further increases in the frequency, duration and severity of meteorological and hydrological droughts for most of Europe during the 21st century; calls on the Commission to properly address the issue of droughts, that, in spite of their inclusion into the scope of EUSF regulation with the 2014 revision, are very difficult to assess in their economic impact and thus to compensate;
Amendment 116 #
18. Points out that in its revised proposal of 27 May 2020 on the MFF 2021-2027 the Commission provided for a maximum annual budget of EUR 1 billion for the EUSF (in 2018 prices)
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Points out that in its revised proposal of 27 May 2020 on the MFF 2021-2027 the Commission provided for a maximum annual budget of EUR 1 billion for the EUSF (in 2018 prices) and
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Points out that in its revised proposal of 27 May 2020 on the MFF 2021-2027 the Commission provided for a maximum annual budget of EUR 1 billion for the EUSF (in 2018 prices) and
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Points out that in its revised proposal of 27 May 2020 on the MFF 2021-2027 the Commission provided for a maximum annual budget of EUR 1 billion for the EUSF (in 2018 prices) and therefore notes with
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, Parliament pointed out that solidarity among the Member States was
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Considers that the establishment of a SEAR may have the advantage of
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Considers that the establishment of a SEAR may have the advantage of some flexibility, but notes that, in its current form, the EUSF allocation remains uncertain, since it depends on the amounts mobilised by the EAR; undertakes, accordingly, closely to monitor the management of the SEAR in order to see whether the funding amount and allocation key provided for in this new financial instrument meet the needs of the EUSF, in view of the extension of its scope and the scale and proliferation of emergencies resulting, in particular
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Welcomes the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Welcomes the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in April 2020 has increased the level of advance payments from 10% to 25% of the amount of the financial contribution anticipated and the maximum amount of the advances from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Welcomes the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in April 2020 has increased the level of advance payments from 10% to 25% of the amount of the financial
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Welcomes the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in April 2020 has increased the level of advance payments from 10% to 25% of the amount of the financial contribution anticipated and the maximum amount of the advances from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million; points out, however, that for countries facing major disasters, the effectiveness of the Fund is directly linked to the level of advance payments and is of the view that it should be much higher, amounting to at least
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Considers that most of the large- scale buildings located in the ORs (such as ports, airports, hospitals), essential as they are for the functioning of these small territories, are public buildings, and are very much exposed to environmental disasters; consequently, believes that the financial support from the EUSF for the ORs should be higher than 2,5% the amount received to remedy past disasters , in order to allow them to quickly return to and improve up on their status quo ante;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Notes that the average time needed to make advance payments is five months and calls on the Commission to consider some more reactive solutions, also exploring the option of setting up specific financial schemes aimed both at reducing the average time for advance payments and at the same time ensuring the protection of the EU budget ;
Amendment 13 #
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes with regret that it takes
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes with regret that it takes on average one year for the entire grant to reach the beneficiary
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes with regret that it takes on average one year for the entire grant to reach the beneficiary and that the Fund cannot therefore, under the current conditions, claim to act as an instrument for rapid intervention; calls on the Commission to expedite payment
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Believes that, in the future,
Amendment 136 #
23. Believes that, in the future, the EUSF budget
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Believes that, in the future, the EUSF budget will have to be increased in order to make it a real tool for EU
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Calls for the criteria for determining operations that are ‘eligible’ for assistance from the Fund to take greater account of the latest risk prevention principles,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. noting with interest that, according to a recent survey,
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Calls for the criteria for determining operations that are ‘eligible’ for assistance from the Fund to take greater account of the latest risk prevention principles,
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Takes the view that operations such as ‘framework loans’, implemented with the EIB, could also be used to finance the reconstruction of more
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls on the Commission to strengthen synergies between the EUSF and cohesion funds, as well as with the UCPM, with a view to effective and structured risk management in the short, medium and long term, not only through the construction of sustainable, energy- and resource-efficient infrastructure, but also through the deployment of preventive measures; also calls on the Commission to demonstrate flexibility with programming and amending of nationals operational programmes when they comes to dealing with natural disasters;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls on the Commission to strengthen and simplify the synergies between the EUSF and cohesion funds, as well as with the U
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls on the Commission to strengthen synergies between the EUSF and cohesion funds, as well as with the UCPM, with a view to effective and structured risk management for reconstruction projects in the short, medium and long term, not only through the construction of sustainable, energy- and resource-efficient infrastructure, but also through the deployment of preventive measures;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Highlights that the extension of the scope of the Fund, to fight impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, has shown us that the EUSF has the capacity to be more flexible, both in scope and in its eligibility - it can provide assistance not only in cases of major natural disasters, but also in the prevention and rapid assistance to other types of major disasters, such as pandemics;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Takes the view that this broadening of the scope of the EUSF requires
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility of the Fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities,
Amendment 15 #
C. noting with interest that, according to a recent survey, more than two thirds of Europeans believe that the European Union should e
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility of the Fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities,
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission and the sovereign Member States to improve the visibility of the Fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities, and to make rapid response and delivery of aid a priority, in order specifically to highlight the Union’s added value in the event of natural and health disasters and its ability to put genuine mutual assistance into practice by providing significant budgetary resources;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. noting with interest that, according to a recent survey, more than two thirds of Europeans believe that the European Union should equip itself with more resources to deal with unexpected crises, such as COVID-19;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas, so far, assistance from the Fund has concerned around a hundred natural disasters in 2
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas, in the years 2017-2018, overall flooding disasters made up some two thirds of all EUSF applications but the reporting period was also marked by significant storms, forest fires and earthquakes;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. noting the usefulness of the EUSF, highlighted by the Commission’s evaluation, in particular as regards reducing the burden o
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. noting the usefulness of the EUSF, highlighted by the Commission’s evaluation, in particular as regards reducing the burden on local authorities facing significant damage as a result of natural disasters or health emergencies;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas, however, the promptness at which the financial assistance is released also depends on the ability of potential beneficiaries to provide full estimates of the total amount of damage caused by the
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the Fund’s regulatory framework was revised in 2014 by amending Regulation (EU) No 661/2014, in particular with a view to simplifying procedures, shortening the time frame for replying after the submission of applications, clarifying the eligibility criteria of
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the Fund’s regulatory framework was revised in 2014 by amending Regulation (EU) No 661/2014, in particular with a view to simplifying procedures, shortening the time frame for replying after the submission of applications, clarifying the eligibility criteria for requests for assistance in the event of
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the rate of approval of requests for assistance in the event of major disasters is 100%, while that of requests for assistance in the event of regional disasters, the most frequent category, has risen from 32% to 85% following the 2014 revision of the EUSF Regulation;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I.
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. noting the Commission acknowledgement that the EUSF is not a rapid reaction instrument and that its implementation and the relevant budgetary procedure may take several months to complete;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. stresses that the period required in order for the full grant to be deployed could be further reduced, as EU solidarity is urgently awaited;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. regret
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. regretting, likewise, that the Fund’s assistance does not cover the additional costs of rebuilding energy- and resource- efficient infrastructure that is more disaster-resilient
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. noting with interest that, as illustrated by the COVID-19 crisis, there is
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. noting with interest that, as illustrated by the COVID-19 crisis, there is a high degree of complementarity between cohesion policy instruments and the EUSF, the fund which responds to natural disasters in the short and medium term, while cohesion policy is geared to longer- term planning with regard to civil protection and preventive and risk management infrastructure; whereas the current health crisis has a very significant human dimension and the Union and the Member States should accordingly act in a spirit of solidarity;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. noting with interest that, as illustrated by the COVID-19 crisis, there is a high degree of complementarity between cohesion policy instruments and the EUSF, the fund which responds to natural disasters in the short and medium term, while cohesion policy is geared to longer- term planning with regard to civil protection
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. welcom
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. welcoming the Commission’s proposal to extend the scope of the EUSF to include health emergencies, so that this financial instrument can be used to provide assistance to populations affected by a
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M.
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas, because of climate change,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters or major public health emergencies, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will, that has sometimes been insufficient or lacking, to provide mutual assistance and solidarity at Union level;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M a (new) Ma. whereas, as laid down in Article 7 of the EUSF regulation, operations financed by the Fund should be compatible with the provisions of the Treaty and instruments adopted under it, with Union policies and measures, in particular in the fields of environmental protection, natural disaster risk prevention and management, climate change adaptation including, where appropriate, eco-system based approaches.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. regretting that people in the
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O a (new) Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas special attention should be paid to the outermost regions (ORs), islands – which are particularly vulnerable to disasters – mountainous regions, sparsely populated regions and all areas that are particularly prone to the risk of natural disasters, and whereas it should also be borne in mind that those areas often have lower levels of insurance to cover the costs of damage than other areas in the EU;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas special attention should be paid to the
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P a (new) Pa. regretting that the EUSF Regulation does not currently allow the submission of aid applications on a cross- border basis, even though certain areas particularly vulnerable to natural disasters, such as mountain areas, are often cross-border;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its deep concern that extreme weather events and natural disasters will only increase and intensify alongside climate change;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is of the view that all citizens expect European solidarity to be shown when disasters or serious health emergencies occur;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The EUSF is one of the most concrete expressions of the EU solidarity;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses with concern that, in recent years, Europeans have had to face multiple emergencies that have devastated human lives, property, economic and social activities, the environment and cultural heritage;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses with concern that, in recent years, Europeans have had to face multiple
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to events such as COVID-19, which is severely affecting all of Europe, forest fires across the continent, including in unusual places such as the Arctic, and the series of violent
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to events such as COVID-19, which is severely affecting all of Europe, forest fires across the continent, including in unusual places such as the Arctic, and the series of violent earthquakes in Europe, particularly in Italy in 2016-2017, causing hundreds of deaths and some EUR 22 billion in damage, and in Croatia in March and December 2020; points out, moreover, that storms, extreme rainfall and flooding have caused considerable damage in many cities and valleys, such as storm Vaia which struck the Dolomites and Venetian Prealps in 2018, and that increasingly violent hurricanes have caused devastation in the outermost regions, such as Hurricane Irma in 2017 in Saint-Martin, and Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 in the Azores, which were particularly
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to sovereign Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will, that has sometimes been lacking, to provide mutual assistance at Union level;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to events such as COVID-19, which is severely affecting all of Europe, forest fires across the continent, including in unusual places such as the Arctic, and the series of violent earthquakes in Europe, particularly in Italy in 2016-2017, causing hundreds of deaths and some EUR 22 billion in damage, and in Croatia in March and December 2020; points out, moreover, that storms, extreme rainfall and flooding have caused considerable damage in many cities and valleys, and that increasingly violent hurricanes have caused devastation in the outermost regions, such as Hurricane Irma in 2017 in Saint-Martin, and Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 in the Azores, which were particularly destructive;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds be sent every
Amendment 63 #
5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds be sent every more rapidly to affected regions, and that links with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the ERDF climate-change adaptation component are essential in order to create a comprehensive package; stresses the importance of granting immediate aid to affected regions, with administrative and procurement procedures coming afterwards;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds be sent every more rapidly to affected regions, and that links with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the ERDF climate-change adaptation component are essential in order to create a comprehensive package; insists that synergies with these and other relevant EU funding instruments should be used flexibly and to their fullest extent;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds be sent every more rapidly and easily to affected regions, and that links with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the ERDF climate-change adaptation component are essential in order to create a comprehensive package;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds be sent every more rapidly to
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Points out that, according to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will, that has
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that, according to the
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that the
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that the risks of natural, ecological and health disasters have now become systemic and that the
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that the risks of natural
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that the risks of natural, ecological and health disasters have now become systemic and that the least developed and most fragile territories, such as islands, mountainous areas and sparsely populated regions are often the most affected by the impact of climate change;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas, under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 on establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, as amended, financial assistance for emergency and recovery operations’ does not include compensation for individuals; whereas, under Article 3(2) losses exceeding 0.6 % of gross national income at national level (‘major natural disaster’) or 1.5 % of gross domestic product at regional level (‘regional natural disaster’) are necessary for deployment of the fund;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is of the view that the risks of natural, ecological and health disasters have now become systemic and that the least developed and most fragile territories, such as the outermost regions and islands, are often the most affected by the impact of climate change;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for the swift deployment of financial resources to combat the scourge of Sargassum seaweed, which is causing huge damage, in particular in the ecosystem of Guadeloupe and Martinique;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Points out that chlordecone is a highly carcinogenic substance that is polluting the soil, subsoil, rivers and shores of Guadeloupe and Martinique, and calls for the health consequences of chlordecone pollution to be recognised as a major public health emergency, thereby benefiting from support under the EUSF;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 c (new) 9c. Calls for access to drinking water for everyone living in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Mayotte to be recognised as a major public health emergency and therefore to benefit from support under the EUSF;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers it vital to improve disaster risk prevention and management in Europe;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers it vital to i
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers it vital to improve disaster risk prevention and management in Europe, and to support adaptation measures in construction, in particular via the development of new infrastructure and the renovation of existing infrastructure; recommends, in this regard, that Member States put in place, together with the Commission, disaster management plans for accurate and rapid damage assessment;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers it vital to improve disaster risk prevention and management in Europe; recommends, in this regard, that Member States put in place, together with the Commission, disaster management plans for accurate and rapid damage assessment; stresses that the EUSF is a straightforward and immediately applicable instrument that the EU can make available to local authorities;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Calls on the Commission to continue its work to
Amendment 89 #
11.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Ab. whereas this rules out immediate and total compensation for working-class households, small and medium-sized farms and small businesses affected by natural disasters that have already borne the brunt of austerity measures imposed on them by the EU and national governments to ensure the profitability of large conglomerates;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Calls on the Commission to continue its work on simplifying the EUSF, with the aim of reducing the time needed in order to disburse the funds;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Is of the opinion that
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Is of the opinion that climate change and the intensification of natural disasters are making territories and regions increasingly vulnerable; calls on the Commission, accordingly, to consider revising the EUSF in order better to take into account disasters on a regional scale; underlines, moreover, the role of ERDF Operational Programmes, in synergy with Rural Development Programmes, in the prevention and mitigation of hydrogeological risks;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Is of the opinion that climate change and the intensification of natural disasters are making territories and regions increasingly vulnerable; calls on the Commission, accordingly, to consider revising the EUSF in order better to take into account disasters on a regional scale, paying particular attention to simplifying applications for activation of the Fund at the scale of several European regions in the context of cross-border disasters;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Highlights that the severity of some natural disasters does not depend exclusively on climate change but are in some cases the result of man-made factors, including incautious spatial planning leading to construction of housing and infrastructure in flood plains of rivers or in landslides-prone territories; reiterates, in this regard, that EUSF reimbursements should favour a stronger resiliency and sustainability, with the financing of eco-system based solutions (e.g. reforestation, earthquake-proof reconstruction);
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Calls on the Commission and the Member State governments to take immediate legislative action to remove the limits set out in Article 2 and amend the provisions of Article 3(2), so as to meet the urgent need for full, immediate and unconditional compensation for working- class households, small and medium-sized farms and owner-operators affected by natural disasters.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen their research and education in order to put in place a system to ensure better preparedness to prevent and manage disasters and to minimize the impact of such crises;
Amendment 98 #
12b. Calls for increased coordination and cooperation between the research and development institutions of Member States, especially those facing similar risks; calls for enhanced early warning systems in Member States and the creation and strengthening of links between the various early warning systems;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 c (new) 12c. Suggests that Member States identify investments, projects and tools in their National Recovery and Resilience Plans in order to prevent and limit damage from natural and health disasters;
source: 663.294
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/3 |
|
docs/3 |
|
events/3/docs |
|
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5/summary |
|
docs/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4 |
|
forecasts |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Procedure completed |
forecasts/0 |
|
forecasts/0 |
|
commission |
|
forecasts/0/title |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting dateNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
events/0/body |
EP
|
events/1/body |
EP
|
events/2/body |
EP
|
events/2/docs |
|
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/2/summary |
|
forecasts/0/title |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Indicative plenary sitting date |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-652609_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE661.876New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-661876_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE663.294New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-663294_EN.html |
events/2 |
|
events/2 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02 |
events/1 |
|
events/2 |
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609 |
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-04-26T00:00:00New
2021-05-17T00:00:00 |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs/1 |
|
docs/2 |
|
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-03-08T00:00:00New
2021-04-26T00:00:00 |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
197413
|
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-02-08T00:00:00New
2021-03-08T00:00:00 |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02 |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/date |
Old
2020-05-08T00:00:00New
2020-02-20T00:00:00 |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609 |
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
forecasts |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02 |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.609 |
docs |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
events |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |