15.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/48

1.

regards the European Union Solidarity Fund (hereafter ‘the fund’) as the main instrument with which the Union can respond to serious disasters occurring within Member States or countries negotiating accession, thus demonstrating its solidarity with disaster-stricken countries, regions and municipalities (Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU));

2.

notes that the existing fund has generally proved a success, though it could be made to work better, especially by simplifying the red tape involved in releasing fund resources so as to substantially cut the time lapse between a disaster and the provision of assistance. The fund's rules could be more transparent and it could respond better to the needs of affected areas;

3.

regrets that the European Commission proposes that the maximum annual allocation for the fund remains unchanged since 2002 at EUR 500 million (2011 prices) which puts at risk that assistance is available for all major disasters, especially given the ever increasing frequency of these;

4.

considers the current regulations and the proposed changes to be compatible with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;

5.

stresses the fact that major natural disasters have a devastating effect, especially on the municipalities and regions they afflict, often severely damaging core infrastructure and natural and cultural heritage in stricken areas;

6.

notes that local and regional authorities usually own the damaged infrastructure and are therefore responsible for its repair. They are also responsible for rescue services, providing temporary accommodation for those evacuated and for cleaning up affected areas;

7.

therefore takes the view that, although Member States and accession countries are the prime recipients of assistance from the fund, this support is in the end intended to fund measures at regional and local level;

8.

stresses that the most important thing for regional and local authorities is the swiftness of the fund's reaction and the targeting of available funding so as to cover real needs as fully as possible;

9.

for this reason, warmly welcomes the Commission's proposals, which help to speed up and better target fund assistance, and sets out a number of important recommendations for local and regional authorities in particular;

10.

draws attention to the need to take into account the particular situation of the outermost regions, which are more vulnerable to extreme weather;

11.

welcomes clarification of the scope of the fund, which removes the current legal uncertainty and so prevents submission of applications that do not meet the conditions;

12.

welcomes the Commission's attempt to simplify the definition of a regional disaster by introducing a clear criterion based on GDP. This new definition will make it easier for the Commission to assess applications and will help to improve transparency and efficacy. It will be easier for potential applicants to judge whether a particular disaster entitles them to assistance;

13.

proposes that the figure for eligibility for assistance in the event of regional natural disasters be set at 1,0% of regional GDP for the NUTS 2 concerned. In the Committee's opinion, this criterion would better reflect the intention of providing more or less the same volume of aid for regional natural disasters;

14.

considers that the indicators quoted should be adjusted for natural disasters occurring in any of the islands in the NUTS 2 archipelago regions to prevent any purely regional consideration from making the fund inoperative in such cases;

15.

points out that, given the ever greater concentration of disasters in areas that largely do not coincide with areas defined (in some Member States merely administratively) as NUTS 2, but that exceed the borders of a number of such regions, focussing the regional criterion only on NUTS 2 areas risks a lack of objectivity;

16.

proposes introducing a criterion for regional disasters at NUTS 3 level for instances in which a number of neighbouring NUTS 3 regions are afflicted that together form an area corresponding in size to a NUTS 2 area (min. 800 000 population). In this case, the consequent GDP level should be calculated from the weighted average of the NUTS 3 regions concerned;

17.

points out that many disasters are crossborder and that in these cases EU intervention would have considerable added value and would send a clear, positive message to citizens;

18.

proposes that the criterion for NUTS 3 level set out above should be used in defining exceptional crossborder national disasters in which neighbouring NUTS 3 regions could be from several countries;

19.

welcomes the possibility of the fund being used not only for ‘immediate’ operations, but also for those directly related to the disaster that might be longer term in nature;

20.

points out that, following a disaster, the local and regional levels have a real need to restore infrastructure to a level where it can better withstand disasters in future and in some cases to relocate such infrastructure to a more suitable place;

21.

proposes that the fund's eligible operations be more precisely defined and that they include the possibility of funding not only the repair of infrastructure, but also its restoration to a standard where it is better able to withstand natural disasters in future. The Committee also proposes that the fund's eligible operations include relocation of infrastructure currently in a location at risk of further natural disasters;

22.

points out that, for some local and regional authorities, the use of outside technical assistance is often vital in coping with a disaster and the work needed to restore the area;

23.

proposes making expenditure on outside technical assistance an eligible expenditure of the fund up to a maximum of 2% of the total fund contribution;

24.

points out that preparation of applications, especially assessing damage and collecting evidence to back up applications, is very time-consuming for the public bodies responsible at a time when they are mounting a necessary response to a disaster. The situation is all the more demanding with disasters that unfold gradually, such as not only drought, but also, for example, floods, which sometimes last several weeks or even months, with any assessment of damage only possible once the water has subsided. The seriousness of the disaster can thus only be ascertained afterwards;

25.

therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal catering for slowly unfolding disasters;

26.

at the same time points out that the proposal for legislation retains the current provisions where other natural disasters are concerned and does not address difficulties in preparing applications relating to flooding of long duration;

27.

for this reason proposes, for these lengthy floods, introducing the option of submitting applications within ten weeks of the threat of a natural disaster ceasing (for example, with the repeal of a state of emergency declared by a Member State or regional authority, etc.);

28.

agrees with the Commission that adopting urgent essential prevention measures in the event of natural disaster is absolutely crucial and such measures must be constantly improved;

29.

expresses concern that the obligation to include information about the prevention of disaster risk in the application may not only constitute an increased administrative burden for the applicant, but also cause a delay in drafting and submitting the application. This would be at odds with the original aim of simplifying the red tape involved in mobilising this fund;

30.

proposes that applicants only be required, when preparing their application, to provide a brief description of the implementation of Union legislation (Article 4(1)(e)) and that the requirement for additional information (Article 4(1)(f)) be dropped, since it is included in the report on the implementation of the contribution from the fund;

31.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to introduce the possibility of advance payments to enable the fund to respond rapidly, but suggests that the system of advance payments operate outside the Multiannual Financial Framework and the structural funds specifically proposed;

32.

welcomes the Commission's intention to speed up the administrative process of approving assistance from the fund so that it reaches stricken areas more swiftly, but points out in this regard that the actual period available for using this contribution is shorter;

33.

proposes extending to 24 months the time limit for using the contribution from the fund, especially since repair to essential infrastructure and the restoration of essential services and supplies can be lengthy given the need to provide the necessary documentation and to follow regulations on public tenders;

34.

European bodies and national, regional and local authorities have made repeated calls for the need to simplify management as much as possible to allow for performance orientation (1). This simplification is all the more necessary in the case of the Solidarity Fund which operates in situations of extreme emergency and which includes in its admissible costs those intended for meeting immediate personal needs. It would thus be desirable to include the use of unit costs in expenditure not intended for restoring infrastructures but for meeting the needs of the individuals affected.