REPORT on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
22.5.2018 - (COM(2017/0772/2) – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD)) - ***I
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Elisabetta Gardini
Rapporteur for the opinion (*):
Željana Zovko, Committee on Development
(*) Associated committee – Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure
PR_COD_1amCom
- 001-065 (PDF - 195 KB)
- 001-065 (DOC - 47 KB)
- 066-067 (PDF - 192 KB)
- 066-067 (DOC - 71 KB)
- 068-069 (PDF - 110 KB)
- 068-069 (DOC - 71 KB)
- 070-070 (PDF - 187 KB)
- 070-070 (DOC - 67 KB)
- 071-075 (PDF - 214 KB)
- 071-075 (DOC - 75 KB)
- 076-078 (PDF - 272 KB)
- 076-078 (DOC - 71 KB)
- 079-079 (PDF - 191 KB)
- 079-079 (DOC - 84 KB)
- 080-080 (PDF - 103 KB)
- 080-080 (DOC - 68 KB)
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(COM(2017)0772/2 – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM2017/0772/2),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0409/2017),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Czech Chamber of Deputies, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions and position in the form of amendments of the Committee on Development, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0180/2018),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
3. Calls on the Commission to refrain from using redeployments for financing new policy priorities that are added in the course of an ongoing multiannual financial framework, as this will inevitably have a negative impact on the implementation of other key Union activities;
4. Calls on the Commission to provide for sufficient financing for the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) under the next multiannual financial framework starting in 2021, building on the present overhaul of the UCPM;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a decision Recital 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) The Union Civil Protection Mechanism ('the Union Mechanism') governed by Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the Council12strengthens cooperation between the Union and the Member States and facilitates coordination in the field of civil protection in order to improve the Union's response to natural and man-made disasters. |
(1) The Union Civil Protection Mechanism ('the Union Mechanism') governed by Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the Council12 strengthens cooperation between the Union, the Member States and their regions and facilitates coordination in the field of civil protection in order to improve the Union's response to natural and man-made disasters. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924). |
12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a decision Recital 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) Natural and man-made disasters can strike anywhere across the globe, often without warning. Whether of natural or man-made origin, they are becoming increasingly frequent, extreme and complex, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, and irrespective of national borders. The human, environmental, and economic consequences stemming from disasters can be enormous. |
(3) Natural and man-made disasters can strike anywhere across the globe, often without warning. Whether of natural or man-made origin, they are becoming increasingly frequent, extreme and complex, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, and irrespective of national borders. The human, environmental, social and economic consequences stemming from disasters can be of an unknown scale. Unfortunately, those disasters are sometimes intentional, for example in the case of terrorist attacks. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a decision Recital 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) Recent experience has shown that reliance on voluntary offers of mutual assistance, coordinated and facilitated by the Union Mechanism, does not always ensure that sufficient capacities are made available to address the basic needs of people affected by disasters in a satisfactory manner, nor that the environment and property are properly safeguarded. This is particularly so where Member States are simultaneously affected by recurrent disasters and collective capacity is insufficient. |
(4) Recent experience has shown that reliance on voluntary offers of mutual assistance, coordinated and facilitated by the Union Mechanism, does not always ensure that sufficient capacities are made available to address the basic needs of people affected by disasters in a satisfactory manner, nor that the environment and property are properly safeguarded. This is particularly so where Member States are simultaneously affected by disasters that are both recurrent and unexpected, both natural and man-made, and collective capacity is insufficient. To overcome those insufficiencies and emerging hazards, all Union instruments should be made use of in a fully flexible manner, including through the promotion of active participation of the civil society. Nevertheless, Member States should undertake adequate preventive actions in terms of preserving an amount of national capacities that is sufficient to properly deal with disasters. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a decision Recital 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) Forest fire prevention is vital in the context of the global commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, the combustion of trees and peat-rich soils in forest fires results in the emission of CO2. More specifically, studies have shown how fires cause 20% of all CO2 emissions around the world, i.e. more than the combined emissions of all the transport systems on earth (vehicles, ships and aircraft). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action. To that effect, Member States should share risk assessments on a regular basis as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to disaster management, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. In addition, the Commission should be able to require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans in relation to specific disasters, notably with a view to maximising overall Union support to disaster risk management. Administrative burden should be reduced and prevention policies strengthened, including by ensuring necessary links to other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/201313. |
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action. To that effect, Member States should share risk assessments, on their national safety and security risks, on a regular basis as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to natural and man-made disaster management, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. In addition, the Commission should be able to require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans in relation to specific disasters, including man-made ones, notably with a view to maximising overall Union support, in particular from the European Environment Agency (EEA), to disaster risk management. It is essential to reduce the administrative burden and to strengthen prevention policies, including by reinforcing links and cooperation with other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/201313. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) Risk constitutes a negative stimulus for the development of regions. Prevention and risk management imply the reformulation of policies and institutional frameworks, and the strengthening of local, national and regional capacities to design and implement risk management measures, coordinating a wide range of actors. Preparing risk maps by regions and / or member states, strengthening the response capacity and reinforcing prevention actions, with special emphasis on climate risks, is crucial. It is crucial that risk maps take into account both the risks caused by the current climate variability and the projected trajectories of climate change. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5b) When Member States prepare their risk assessments and their risk management planning, they should take into account the specific risks to wildlife and animal welfare. The Commission should encourage across Europe the dissemination of information about animals affected in disasters. Training programmes and courses should be further developed in this regard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5c) The 2017 forest fire season was particularly long and intense in many Member States, resulting in over 100 deaths in one Member State alone. The lack of available assets, outlined in the Capacity Gaps Report 1a, and the inability of the European Emergency Response Capacity ('EERC' or 'voluntary pool') to respond in good time to all 17 requests for forest fire assistance, proved that the voluntary nature of Member States' contributions is insufficient during large-scale emergencies affecting several Member States at the same time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress made and gaps remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity, 17.02.2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5d) The most natural partners for deepening cooperation are neighbouring Member States who share the same expertise and structures and are most likely to be affected by the same disasters and risks. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a decision Recital 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) There is a need to reinforce the collective ability to prepare and respond to disasters notably through mutual support in Europe. In addition to strengthening the possibilities already offered by the European Emergency Response Capacity ('EERC' or 'voluntary pool'), from now on referred to as "European Civil Protection Pool", the Commission should also establish rescEU. The composition of rescEU should include emergency response capacities to respond to wildfires, large-scale floods and earthquakes, as well as a field hospital and medical teams in line with World Health Organisation standards, that can be rapidly deployed. |
(6) There is a need to reinforce the collective ability to prepare and respond to disasters notably through mutual support in Europe. In addition to strengthening the possibilities already offered by the European Emergency Response Capacity ('EERC' or 'voluntary pool'), from now on referred to as "European Civil Protection Pool", the Commission should also establish rescEU. The composition of rescEU should include emergency response capacities to respond to wildfires, large-scale floods and earthquakes, terrorist attacks and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks, as well as a field hospital and medical teams in line with World Health Organisation standards, that can be rapidly deployed. In this regard, it is important to strengthen and include the specific capacities of local and regional authorities, since they are the first to intervene after a disaster. Those authorities should develop cooperation models in which communities can share best practices, giving them the opportunity to help to develop their resilience in the face of natural disasters. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a decision Recital 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(6a) The role of regional and local authorities in disaster prevention and management is of great importance and their response capacities need to be appropriately involved in any coordination and deployment activities carried out under this Decision, in accordance with Member States' institutional and legal frameworks, with a view to minimising overlaps and to fostering interoperability. Such authorities can play an important preventive role and they are also the first to react in the aftermath of a disaster,together with their volunteers’ capacities. Therefore, there is a need for on-going cooperation at local, regional and cross-border level with a view to establishing common alert systems for rapid intervention prior to the mobilisation of rescEU, as well as regular public information campaigns on initial response measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring availability of capacities in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States. Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. |
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available material and technical capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters, including in the case of cross-border events, by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness and deployability of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring the speedy availability of material and technical capacities, including for rescuing elderly persons or persons with disabilities, in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States, such as cross-border epidemics. The pre-committed suitable equipment and Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. Optimal and transparent use of financial resources should be ensured. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When mobilising capacities through the UCPM, speed is of the utmost importance, as illustrated by the tragic consequences of the late deployment of firefighting planes in the most recent forest fire seasons in Southern Europe. EU co-funding should always be provided under conditions of full transparency and accountability. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(7a) Many Member States are faced with a lack of material and technical equipment when unexpected disasters arise. The Union Mechanism should therefore make it possible to expand the material and technical base where necessary, in particular for the sake of rescuing persons with a disability, elderly persons or persons with an illness. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a decision Recital 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(9) In order to strengthen efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises and enhance co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities and services it is necessary to establish a Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network that is based on existing structures. |
(9) Training, research and innovation are essential aspects of cooperation in the civil protection field. The efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises, the promotion of innovation, and dialogue and co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities and services should be strengthened on the basis of existing structures with the involvement of and the exchange of information with centres of excellence, universities, researchers and other expertise available in the Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a decision Recital 9 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(9a) While strengthening civil protection in the light of disaster trends, both weather-related and those relating to internal security, is one of the most important priorities throughout the whole Union, it is essential to complement the Union’s tools with a stronger territorial and community-led dimension, as local community action is the fastest and most effective way of limiting the damage caused by a disaster. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism. |
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism, but not at the expense of the financial envelopes allocated to other key Union policies such as those promoting rights, equality and citizenship, justice or human development worldwide, including all the funds allocated to gender equality and women’s empowerment programmes and projects, in particular, bearing in mind that the implementation of some of those programmes has been exceptionally successful: payment allocations for REC reached more than 99% in the previous three years. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship (REC) and Justice programmes. Almost 100% absorption rate for the REC programme implies that no new resources can be deployed from this programme without negatively affecting specific projects and organizations. FEMM has been continuously pointing out the need to increase the funding of the REC in view of DAPHNE and gender equality programmes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(10a) Separate funding and budgetary allocations should be guaranteed for the revised Union Mechanism. Considering the need to avoid any negative impact on the financing of existing multiannual programmes, the increase in financing for the targeted revision of the Union Mechanism in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 should be drawn exclusively from all means available under Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/20131a, with particular recourse to the Flexibility Instrument. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
___________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. Instead, any additional funding necessary should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a decision Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) There is a need to simplify Union Mechanism procedures to ensure that Member States can access assistance and capacities needed in order to respond to natural or man-made disasters as rapidly as possible. |
(11) There is a need to simplify, streamline and increase the flexibility of the Union Mechanism procedures to ensure that Member States can quickly access assistance and capacities needed in order to respond to natural or man-made disasters as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a decision Recital 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(12) In order to maximise the use of existing funding instruments and support Member States in delivering assistance, particularly in response to disasters outside the Union, a derogation to Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council14 should be provided for when financing is granted pursuant to Articles 21, 22 and 23 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. |
(12) In order to maximise the use of existing funding instruments and support Member States in delivering assistance, including in response to disasters outside the Union, a derogation to Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council14 should be provided for when financing is granted pursuant to Articles 21, 22 and 23 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. Notwithstanding that derogation, funding for civil protection activities and humanitarian aid, in particular, should remain clearly separate in any future Union funding architecture and be fully in line with the different objectives and legal requirements of that architecture. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). |
14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border prevention action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15. Likewise, coherence should be ensured with international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. |
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border prevention action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15. Territorial cooperation programmes under cohesion policy provide for specific actions to take into account disaster resilience, risk prevention and risk management, and further efforts should be made towards more vigorous integration and greater synergies. Furthermore, all actions should be coherent with, and actively contribute to meeting, international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). |
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13a) It is essential that the modules previously registered in the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS) be maintained in order to respond to requests for assistance and to participate in the training system in the usual way. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It provides a framework for collecting validated information on the situation, for dissemination to the Member States and for sharing lessons learnt from deployments. The retention of the registered modules would mean for Austria that ten modules of the state fire brigade associations would not fall out of the system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13b) It is equally important to connect the Union Mechanism, which is limited to the period immediately following the catastrophe, to other Union instruments focused on reversing the damage, such as the Solidarity Fund. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13c) It is essential that the Solidarity Fund be modified by introducing the obligation to repair the damage to the environment and by using the GDP per capita of the region or Member State instead of the global GDP as an indicator for its approval, to prevent large, populated regions with low levels of wealth from not being eligible to benefit from the Fund. It is very important to value the environment affected by a catastrophe in an economic way, especially areas of high natural value, such as protected areas or covered by the Natura 2000 network, in order to repair them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13d) There is a need for Union action to focus also on providing technical training assistance so that the capacity of communities for self-help can be enhanced, leaving them better prepared to provide an initial response and contain a disaster. Targeted training and education for public safety practitioners, such as community leaders, social and medical care practitioners, the rescue and firefighting services as well as local voluntary intervention groups which should dispose of rapidly available intervention equipment, can help contain a disaster and reduce fatalities both during and in the aftermath of the crisis. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1523544518145&uri=CELEX:32013D1313) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The purpose of the decision to amend the original text is to clarify the aim of the measure in the context of the overall revision of Article 6. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission’s decision to establish possible specific consultation mechanisms should include the involvement of the Member States which are an integral part of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point k | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 10 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A compulsory registration of capacities is not possible for some Member States and their voluntary schemes. Account must also be taken of the fact that Member States may not be able to provide any capacities, for example: due to force majeure. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the point of view of subsidiarity, it is more useful if needs are analysed on the ground or if the Commission cannot act alone in this instance, but with the Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process and in order to detect possible changes with a budgetary impact as early as possible, it is suggested that the Parliament and Council receive updated information on the progress of the reinforcement of the UCPM on an annual basis, including mandatory information of budgetary and cost developments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12a – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process and in order to detect possible changes with a budgetary impact as early as possible, it is suggested that the Parliament and Council receive updated information on the progress of the reinforcement of the UCPM on an annual basis, including mandatory information of budgetary and cost developments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 –subparagraph 2 – introductory sentence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your rapporteur considers it necessary to amend Article 13(1) of Decision 1313/2013/EU, even if the new Commission proposal for a decision does not make provision for this. The amendment ensures consistency with the objectives of the Commission proposal. The establishment of an Erasmus civil protection programme will help to develop uniform European training standards based on the same basic training levels for civil protection staff in all Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point f | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9c (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This additional paragraph seeks to promote the sharing of knowledge and experiences, including the potential for expanding training capacities to third countries (as mentioned in the interim evaluation), to improve future response operations and improve coherence with the Sendai framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 16 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The interim evaluation of the civil protection mechanism found that, in a changing landscape of response operations, the blurred definition of civil protection interventions in humanitarian response operations impacted the ability of the mechanism to achieve its objectives. This amendment to the current decision seeks to help clarifying the scope of civil protection interventions in man-made disasters and complex emergencies, in which humanitarian aid operations are also active. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph – point 12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. Instead, any additional funding necessary should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 20 a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 26 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In light of the Commission proposal for Article 26 (1), which allows funding from different sources for civil protection actions, the proposed amendment seeks to ensure the clear differentiation between humanitarian and civil protection operations and their funding. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 18 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point g | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a decision Annex I (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNEX I | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INDICATIVE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Heading 3* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19,157 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
115,2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
122,497 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
256,854 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56,56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
115,395 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
182,955 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Heading 4* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,284 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,284 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0,8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,614 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Headings 3 and 4 combined* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21,157 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
117,2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
124,781 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
263,138 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11,8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58,36 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
117,409 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
187,569 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(figures in EUR million) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* The full amounts are to be provided through the Flexibility Instrument. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The additional financing needed for the present revision of the UCPM in the years 2018-2020 should be defined in more detail in the Decision itself, through a self-standing, detailed Annex I. Any additional funding necessary for financing this revision of the UCPM should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. |
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
A worrying context
Natural disasters in Europe and worldwide are increasing significantly, both because of the frequency with which they occur and their intensity, and pose a serious threat to our societies, economies and ecosystems.
The scale of the problem can be understood simply by looking at, for example, the natural disasters of 2017, which, in Europe alone caused 200 deaths. The fires which spread in 2017 devastated the south of the continent, burning more than one million hectares of land and killing over 100 people in just six months. 2017 was also the year in which a series of tropical storms repeatedly struck the European overseas territories in the Caribbean, testing EU assistance to its limits. Still more unexpectedly, in the same year, there were even violent hurricanes which caused serious flooding and destruction on the North Atlantic side of Europe.
The future scenario described by scientific researchers is even more worrying, given that these events are expected to intensify. Years like 2017 will no longer be an exception, but the rule. Without a shadow of a doubt, the main reason for this is climate change, which has amplified the negative impact of events caused by extreme weather conditions. It is no coincidence that climate change has been described as one of the biggest global health threats of the 21st century.
The situation could be improved
However, in the face of such a scenario, the European Union has not remained idle. Over the years, it has developed a sound disaster response network; the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) is key to this system. In playing its support role, the Mechanism has helped Member States to optimise their disaster prevention and risk reduction efforts. The Mechanism has intervened both inside and outside the EU, through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre - ERCC. The recent interim evaluation of the Mechanism points out that it ‘constitutes a visible expression of European solidarity’.
However, recent operational experiences at events such as the 2017 fire season or the 2015-2016 migration crisis have highlighted the shortcomings of the Mechanism in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.
The current model is based on voluntary contributions from Member States, which make available in advance their capacities to the EERC (from now on referred to as the European Civil Protection Pool) in exchange for financial support by the Union to cover expenses such as adaptation, certification and transport costs. However, this system has proven to be insufficient to respond to major emergencies that affect several Member States at the same time. The main problem in relying primarily upon national capacities is that they are not available for use in the EU if they are being used nationally.
To ensure that the European Union can provide for the safety of its citizens in the face of disasters, it must be underpinned by a stronger Mechanism that is able to respond robustly and reliably. Your rapporteur believes that a more ambitious Mechanism is needed.
A vision for the future
Your rapporteur’s vision for a fully developed Union Civil Protection Mechanism is built on three essential elements.
1. A genuine European civil protection capacity. The future mechanism should acquire further capacities compared to those currently existing in the Member States, in addition to having its own capacities. A genuine European Civil Protection Capacity should be established. This new Capacity will fill the gaps identified in the national response systems. The intention is not to take over or duplicate the work of the Member States, but to complement it where necessary.
To build this Capacity, the Union will fund the acquisition of new resources, such as, for instance, fire-fighting aircraft. The new capacities could be based on rental contracts, or on the repair or adaptation of existing capacities, for which the Union should contribute significantly. There are other examples of financial incentives: the Union could bear the costs resulting from the action of the Union Mechanism, or transport costs.
Some of these aspects are already provided for in the current Union Mechanism, which is a good start. However, the low level of co-financing offered by the current system means that the incentives are not being properly exploited.
2. The consistency of the Capacity with other existing instruments. The new Mechanism should also be more consistent, both within the EU and beyond. This means that the establishment of the Capacity must go hand in hand with further efforts by Member States in terms of prevention. The new system encourages everyone to be responsible. Prevention will have a key role in disaster management and will have to be developed in the future. Therefore, your rapporteur’s idea of the new Mechanism is one that does not act in isolation, but builds on the strength of other EU instruments and focuses on risk prevention.
Such consistency, however, should not only relate to prevention, but also to response. The new Mechanism should dovetail with other existing EU disaster response instruments, such as the humanitarian aid instrument. Proper coordination between the two instruments will ensure that overall EU action is more consistent and effective both outside and within EU borders.
3. A fair allocation of resources. As a direct consequence of the two preceding elements, your rapporteur believes that in the future, the EU needs to make a greater financial commitment. The current Mechanism budget of EUR 368 million for the period 2014-2020 is paltry compared to the more than EUR 433 billion in economic losses caused by extreme climate-related events since 1980 in the Member States.
Your rapporteur takes the view that a greater EU financial commitment should be accompanied by an appropriate coordination role for the Union. The European Union will be expected to exercise full command over, and control of, any new European Civil Protection Capacity. Given that the Union will make full provision for the acquisition of resources for the new Capacity, it will also retain possession of it.
In addition, your rapporteur considers it advisable to establish an Erasmus civil protection programme, to strengthen the cooperation that already exists between Member States.
Lastly, your rapporteur wishes to stress that citizens continue to trust in a European civil protection service: over the years, Eurobarometer data have constantly shown that 90 % of respondents considered it important that the EU help to coordinate the response to disasters within its territory through its civil protection role. Most EU citizens (56 %) believe that their country does not have sufficient capacities to cope with all major disasters alone. These figures show that a Europe based on civil protection is what the citizens want to see.
OPINION of the Committee on Development (25.4.2018)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(COM(2017)0772/2 – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Željana Zovko (*)
(*) Associated committee – Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Europe and the world are facing a growing number of disasters, with great human and material costs. The frequency and intensity of weather-related disasters, notably floods and forest fires are also increasing as a result of climate change. The European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM)[1] aims to support, complement and facilitate the coordination of Member States actions with the objective of increasing the prevention, preparedness and response to disaster. The EUCPM can be activated in response to disasters occurring both inside and outside the Union (the latter represent more than half of all activations of the mechanism). In responses to disasters outside the Union, the EUCPM is often activated in parallel to the provision of humanitarian assistance by the EU.
The Commission proposal[2] to amend this decision currently being considered by the European Parliament and Council seeks to: 1) reinforce the EU’s and Member States’ capacities to respond to disasters by creating a dedicated reserve of assets at EU level (rescEU), which will be deployed upon decision by the Commission, and also by seeking a more effective contribution of Member States to the European Civil Protection Pool; 2) strengthen the focus on prevention actions and the coherence with other EU policies; and 3) promote a simplified and effective administrative procedure in the operations of the mechanism.
In this DEVE opinion to the ENVI Committee, the rapporteur supports the reinforcement of the EU’s and Member States’ capacities to respond to disasters, whilst stressing that the principle of subsidiarity must be fully respected. In this line, the rapporteur seeks to introduce a number of changes to the Commission proposal and the current decision based, among others, on the findings of recent evaluations[3].
The objectives of the most important changes are as follow:
• reinforce the international cooperation dimension of the EUCPM, including through extending training capacities and knowledge sharing. This should furthermore support international disaster risk reduction commitments (notably the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030).
• stress the need for a clear definition of the scope of EUCPM operations in man-made or complex emergencies in line with the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Underline that these activities – and their funding instruments – should remain fully differentiated even when synergies and complementarity between instruments are sought.
• ensure that capacities at the EU level (rescEU) are complementary to, and not substitute, the development civil protection capacities at the national level, by maintaining the co-financing of transport costs for assets not part of the European Civil Protection Pool.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a decision Recital 9 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(9) In order to strengthen efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises and enhance co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities and services it is necessary to establish a Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network that is based on existing structures. |
(9) In order to strengthen efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises and enhance co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities and services it is necessary to establish a Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network that is based on existing structures. That network should promote and strengthen relations with international organisations and third countries in order to reinforce cooperation in disaster risk reduction, and contribute to the commitments made in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a decision Recital 12 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(12) In order to maximise the use of existing funding instruments and support Member States in delivering assistance, particularly in response to disasters outside the Union, a derogation to Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council14 should be provided for when financing is granted pursuant to Articles 21, 22 and 23 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. |
(12) In order to maximise the use of existing funding instruments and support Member States in delivering assistance, particularly in response to disasters outside the Union, a derogation to Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council14 should be provided for when financing is granted pursuant to Articles 21, 22 and 23 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. Notwithstanding that derogation, funding for civil protection activities and humanitarian aid, in particular, should remain clearly separate in any future Union funding architecture and be fully in line with the different objectives and legal requirements of that architecture. | |||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||
14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). |
14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border prevention action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15. Likewise, coherence should be ensured with international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. |
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border prevention action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15. Furthermore, all actions should be coherent with, and actively contribute to meeting international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. | |||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). |
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||
This amendment to the current decision seeks to allow a more active role by the Commission in the use of expert prevention missions, including in third countries, as this can increase their visibility and accessibility. These missions can, as highlighted in the interim evaluation, contribute – together with other instruments – to increase international cooperation on civil protection and improve coherence with the Sendai framework. | ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 7 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||
This amendment to the current decision seeks to allow a more active role by the Commission in the use of expert preparedness missions, including in third countries, as this can increase their visibility and accessibility. These missions can, as highlighted in the interim evaluation, contribute – together with other instruments – to increase international cooperation on civil protection and improve coherence with the Sendai framework. | ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||
This additional paragraph seeks to promote the sharing of knowledge and experiences, including the potential for expanding training capacities to third countries (as mentioned in the interim evaluation), to improve future response operations and improve coherence with the Sendai framework. | ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 16 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||
The interim evaluation of the civil protection mechanism found that, in a changing landscape of response operations, the blurred definition of civil protection interventions in humanitarian response operations impacted the ability of the mechanism to achieve its objectives. This amendment to the current decision seeks to help clarifying the scope of civil protection interventions in man-made disasters and complex emergencies, in which humanitarian aid operations are also active. | ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 26 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||
In light of the Commission proposal for Article 26 (1), which allows funding from different sources for civil protection actions, the proposed amendment seeks to ensure the clear differentiation between humanitarian and civil protection operations and their funding. |
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Union Civil Protection Mechanism |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0772 – C8-0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
DEVE 14.12.2017 |
||||
Associated committees - date announced in plenary |
15.3.2018 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Željana Zovko 8.2.2018 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
20.2.2018 |
20.3.2018 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
24.4.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
21 0 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Ignazio Corrao, Mireille D’Ornano, Nirj Deva, Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Maria Heubuch, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Arne Lietz, Linda McAvan, Norbert Neuser, Vincent Peillon, Cristian Dan Preda, Lola Sánchez Caldentey, Elly Schlein, Eleni Theocharous, Paavo Väyrynen, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Anna Záborská, Joachim Zeller, Željana Zovko |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Pál Csáky, Monika Vana |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
21 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Paavo Väyrynen |
|
ECR |
Eleni Theocharous |
|
EFDD |
Ignazio Corrao, Mireille D'Ornano |
|
GUE/NGL |
Lola Sánchez Caldentey |
|
PPE |
Pál Csáky, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Cristian Dan Preda, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Anna Záborská, Joachim Zeller, Željana Zovko |
|
S&D |
Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Arne Lietz, Linda McAvan, Norbert Neuser, Vincent Peillon, Elly Schlein |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Maria Heubuch, Monika Vana |
|
0 |
- |
|
|
|
|
1 |
0 |
|
ECR |
Nirj Deva |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
- [1] Decision No. 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013
on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism - [2] Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism 2017/0309 (COD)
- [3] Interim evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, 2014-2016 (Final Report), August 2017
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Interim Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism for the period 2014-2016 {SWD(2017) 287 final}
European Court of Auditors Special Report 33/2017 “Union Civil Protection Mechanism: the coordination of responses to disasters outside the EU has been broadly effective”
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (25.4.2018)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(COM(2017)0772/2 – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: José Manuel Fernandes
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The rapporteur welcomes the proposal to amend the present Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) with the aim of ensuring that the Union can provide a better crisis and emergency support to its citizens in and outside Europe, including through enhanced disaster prevention efforts. He recalls that the UCPM is one of the most tangible expressions of the EU’s core value of solidarity.
The rapporteur underlines that investing in prevention and disaster preparedness is the best form of protection, not only because it has the greatest potential for saving lives and preventing human suffering, but also because it can avoid incurring huge remedial costs once a disaster strikes. According to the Commission’s own calculations, 1 euro spent on disaster preparedness saves up to 7 euros in relief efforts.
The rapporteur is convinced that an overhaul of the current system has been long overdue. The insufficiency of the present, voluntary system has been painfully exposed in the Union’s response to a number of recent disasters, in particular through the lack of available assets during the 2016 and 2017 forest fire seasons, whereby only 10 of 17 requests for forest fire assistance could be granted, and even those often after significant delays, resulting in a loss of over 100 lives. Also, several reports have pointed out the existing gaps in terms of the availability of certain critical response capacities, in particular with regard to forest fire fighting planes, shelter, and possibly other types of resources.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that the proposed structure with two complementary pillars, consisting of, on the one hand, a European Civil Protection Pool of pre-committed Member State response capacities and, on the other hand, the so-called ‘rescEU’, a dedicated reserve of response capacities with command and control at Union level, which is to serve as a last-resort capacity, is the most appropriate and effective way of overcoming the limitations of the current framework. By pooling resources optimally and generating economies of scale, the strengthened UCPM will also lead to significant savings for Member States.
The rapporteur recalls that the total cost of the Commission’s proposal is estimated at EUR 280 million for the period 2018-2020, of which EUR 256,9 million in Heading 3 ‘Security and citizenship’, EUR 6,3 million in Heading 4 ‘Global Europe’ and EUR 16,9 million in Heading 5 ‘Administrative expenditure’. Of the proposed operational expenditure, 54 % would be allocated to preparedness, including the acquisition or leasing of rescEU assets, 37 % to response, and 9 % to prevention activities. The proposal also entails the recruitment of 100 additional staff over three years. The rapporteur considers these proposals proportionate to the scale and purpose of the revision.
The rapporteur welcomes the proposed use of the Flexibility Instrument to cover the bulk (88 %) of the additional resources needed. However, he strongly rejects the proposed redeployment of funding from existing programmes in Headings 3 and 4 to the tune of EUR 31,3 million. As has been underlined by the Committee on Budgets on many occasions, significant new policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. Moreover, many of the affected programmes, such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes, boast excellent implementation rates and have been underfunded for years. The rapporteur therefore proposes to finance the full amount of the additional resources needed under Headings 3 and 4 through the Flexibility Instrument, as detailed in a new Annex I.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Motion for a resolution |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
2 a. Calls on the Commission to refrain from using redeployments for financing new policy priorities that are added in the course of an ongoing multiannual financial framework, as this will inevitably have a negative impact on the implementation of other key Union activities. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Motion for a resolution |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
2 b. Calls on the Commission to provide for sufficient financing for the Union Civil Protection Mechanism under the next multiannual financial framework starting in 2021, building on the present overhaul. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
In order to build on the current revision of the UCPM, which strengthens both the policy and the financing, it will be important for the Commission, when coming forward with its new proposals for the next multiannual financial framework, to propose an ambitious financial envelope for the UCPM after 2020. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring availability of capacities in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States. Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. |
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness and deployability of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring the speedy availability of capacities in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States. Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. Optimal and transparent use of financial resources should be ensured. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
When mobilising capacities through the UCPM, speed is of the utmost importance, as illustrated by the tragic consequences of the late deployment of firefighting planes in the most recent forest fire seasons in Southern Europe. EU co-funding should always be provided under conditions of full transparency and accountability. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism. |
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should be made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism, but not at the expense of the financial envelopes allocated to other key Union policies such as those promoting rights, equality and citizenship, justice or human development worldwide. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
When mobilising capacities through the UCPM, speed is of the utmost importance, as illustrated by the tragic consequences of the late deployment of firefighting planes in the most recent forest fire seasons in Southern Europe. EU co-funding should always be provided under conditions of full transparency and accountability. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(10 a) Separate funding and budgetary allocations should be guaranteed for the revised Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Considering the need to avoid any negative impact on the financing of existing multiannual programmes, the increase in financing for the targeted revision of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 should be drawn exclusively from all means available under Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/20131a, with particular recourse to the Flexibility Instrument. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
___________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884). | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. Instead, any additional funding necessary should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
To ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process and in order to detect possible changes with a budgetary impact as early as possible, it is suggested that the Parliament and Council receive updated information on the progress of the reinforcement of the UCPM on an annual basis, including mandatory information of budgetary and cost developments. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12a – paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
To ensure full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process and in order to detect possible changes with a budgetary impact as early as possible, it is suggested that the Parliament and Council receive updated information on the progress of the reinforcement of the UCPM on an annual basis, including mandatory information of budgetary and cost developments. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph – point 12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. Instead, any additional funding necessary should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a decision Annex I (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||
ANNEX I | |||||||||||||||||||
INDICATIVE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2020 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
2018 | |||||||||||||||||||
2019 | |||||||||||||||||||
2020 | |||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL | |||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Heading 3* | |||||||||||||||||||
CA | |||||||||||||||||||
19,157 | |||||||||||||||||||
115,2 | |||||||||||||||||||
122,497 | |||||||||||||||||||
256,854 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
PA | |||||||||||||||||||
11 | |||||||||||||||||||
56,56 | |||||||||||||||||||
115,395 | |||||||||||||||||||
182,955 | |||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Heading 4* | |||||||||||||||||||
CA | |||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||
2,284 | |||||||||||||||||||
6,284 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
PA | |||||||||||||||||||
0,8 | |||||||||||||||||||
1,8 | |||||||||||||||||||
2,014 | |||||||||||||||||||
4,614 | |||||||||||||||||||
Total additional appropriations under Headings 3 and 4 combined* | |||||||||||||||||||
CA | |||||||||||||||||||
21,157 | |||||||||||||||||||
117,2 | |||||||||||||||||||
124,781 | |||||||||||||||||||
263,138 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
PA | |||||||||||||||||||
11,8 | |||||||||||||||||||
58,36 | |||||||||||||||||||
117,409 | |||||||||||||||||||
187,569 | |||||||||||||||||||
(figures in EUR million) | |||||||||||||||||||
* The full amounts are to be provided through the Flexibility Instrument. | |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The additional financing needed for the present revision of the UCPM in the years 2018-2020 should be defined in more detail in the Decision itself, through a self-standing, detailed Annex I. Any additional funding necessary for financing this revision of the UCPM should be mobilised using the flexibility provisions of the MFF Regulation. |
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Union Civil Protection Mechanism |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0772/2 – C8-0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
BUDG 14.12.2017 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
José Manuel Fernandes 13.12.2017 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
22.3.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
24.4.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
27 2 0 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Jean Arthuis, Richard Ashworth, Reimer Böge, Gérard Deprez, Manuel dos Santos, André Elissen, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Ingeborg Gräßle, Monika Hohlmeier, John Howarth, Bernd Kölmel, Vladimír Maňka, Siegfried Mureşan, Liadh Ní Riada, Jan Olbrycht, Răzvan Popa, Paul Rübig, Petri Sarvamaa, Indrek Tarand, Inese Vaidere, Monika Vana, Tiemo Wölken, Marco Zanni |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Jean-Paul Denanot, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Ivana Maletić, Andrey Novakov, Tomáš Zdechovský |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
27 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Jean Arthuis, Gérard Deprez, Anneli Jäätteenmäki |
|
ECR |
Bernd Kölmel |
|
GUE/NGL |
Liadh Ní Riada |
|
PPE |
Richard Ashworth, Reimer Böge, José Manuel Fernandes, Ingeborg Gräßle, Monika Hohlmeier, Ivana Maletić, Siegfried Mureşan, Andrey Novakov, Jan Olbrycht, Paul Rübig, Petri Sarvamaa, Inese Vaidere, Tomáš Zdechovský |
|
S&D |
Jean-Paul Denanot, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, John Howarth, Vladimír Maňka, Răzvan Popa, Manuel dos Santos, Tiemo Wölken |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Indrek Tarand, Monika Vana |
|
2 |
- |
|
ENF |
André Elissen, Marco Zanni |
|
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
OPINION of the Committee on Regional Development (30.4.2018)
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(COM(2017)0772 – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD))
Rapporteur: Daniel Buda
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The European Civil Protection Mechanism is an important strategy of the European Union to promptly respond to emergencies that may occur in territories inside or outside the European Union, and enables coordinated assistance through the share of resources in all its participating countries but it needs to be improved in terms of prevention, preparedness, organization and emergency management capacities.
Your draftsman believes that the EU Civil Protection Mechanism plays a key role in the implementation of Article 196 of TFEU which encourages cooperation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters.
In this context, your draftsman welcomes the initiative presented by the European Commission which aims to simplify and to strengthen the current solidarity mechanism with a greater financial effort by the European Union to create, in addition to the national capacities, an ambitious European capacity reserve to reinforce the assets of the Member States.
Your draftsman underlines the already existing contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds to promote climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management. Furthermore, he believes that, in order to facilitate a rapid and effective deployment of assistance, the mobilization of assets under RescEU should have a regional approach, in particular by strengthening and involving the capacities of local and regional authorities, with a view to better respond to the particularities of the regions affected.
Exploiting synergies between different Union funds represents an important factor of improved effectiveness and increased efficiency in sustainable disaster prevention and response. Therefore, your draftsman encourages a better cooperation and coordination between the different instruments including The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in an integrated approach.
Your draftsman supports as well the proposal made by the Commission to create a network of skills and expertise of the different Member States in the field, proposing the involvement of centres of excellence and universities.
Finally, your draftsman believes that a better communication strategy should be developed in order to make the actions and the results under EU Civil Protection Mechanism more visible to citizens and strengthen their confidence in the Union capacity to both prevent and respond to disasters.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Regional Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a decision Recital 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(1) The Union Civil Protection Mechanism ('the Union Mechanism') governed by Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the Council12strengthens cooperation between the Union and the Member States and facilitates coordination in the field of civil protection in order to improve the Union's response to natural and man-made disasters. |
(1) The Union Civil Protection Mechanism ('the Union Mechanism') governed by Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the Council12 strengthens cooperation between the Union, the Member States and their regions and facilitates coordination in the field of civil protection in order to improve the Union's response to natural and man-made disasters. | |||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||
12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924). |
12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924). | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a decision Recital 3 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(3) Natural and man-made disasters can strike anywhere across the globe, often without warning. Whether of natural or man-made origin, they are becoming increasingly frequent, extreme and complex, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, and irrespective of national borders. The human, environmental, and economic consequences stemming from disasters can be enormous. |
(3) Natural and man-made disasters can strike anywhere across the globe. Whether of natural origin and exacerbated by climate change, or man-made, including new types of threats, such as those related to internal security, they are becoming increasingly frequent, extreme and complex, surpassing national borders. The human, environmental, and economic consequences stemming from disasters are often enormous in the medium and long term. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a decision Recital 4 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(4) Recent experience has shown that reliance on voluntary offers of mutual assistance, coordinated and facilitated by the Union Mechanism, does not always ensure that sufficient capacities are made available to address the basic needs of people affected by disasters in a satisfactory manner, nor that the environment and property are properly safeguarded. This is particularly so where Member States are simultaneously affected by recurrent disasters and collective capacity is insufficient. |
(4) Recent experiences have shown that reliance on voluntary offers of mutual assistance, coordinated and facilitated by the Union Mechanism, does not always ensure that sufficient capacities are made available to address the basic needs of people affected by disasters in a timely and satisfactory manner, nor that the environment and property are properly safeguarded. This is particularly so where Member States and their regions, as well as those Member States and regions in the near neighbourhood are affected by recurrent and simultaneous disasters and the collective capacity is insufficient. The system should be improved and Member States should take adequate preventive action to preserve and strengthen national capacities to a level that is sufficient to properly respond to disasters. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action. To that effect, Member States should share risk assessments on a regular basis as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to disaster management, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. In addition, the Commission should be able to require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans in relation to specific disasters, notably with a view to maximising overall Union support to disaster risk management. Administrative burden should be reduced and prevention policies strengthened, including by ensuring necessary links to other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/201313. |
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action on all levels as the impact of climate change affects all territories and is cross-border in nature. To that effect, Member States in partnership with their local and regional authorities should share risk assessments, as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to disaster management, including in cross-border events, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions as swiftly as possible, including through education and professional training. In addition, where appropriate, the Commission should request Member States to provide specific training, prevention, preparedness, as well as evacuation plans in relation to specific disasters, such asearthquakes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, floods and water shortages, and humanitarian and technological disasters, notably with a view to maximising the overall Union support to disaster risk management. It is essential to reduce the administrative burden and to strengthen prevention policies and operational capacities, also at cross-border level, including by enhancing the links and coordination with other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in Article 1 and recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/201313 and of the European Union Solidarity Fund. In this context, it is important to underline that the European Structural and Investment Funds (‘ESI Funds’) are already contributing to promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management and that there is an ex-ante conditionality in place that is linked to that objective. | |||||||||||||||
_________________ |
_________________ | |||||||||||||||
13 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). |
13 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
|
(5a) The Union’s macro-regional strategies could offer high quality frameworks for cooperation with a view to establishing operational preventive actions, as well as reaction and management centres, allowing also for collaboration in this field with neighbourhood third countries. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a decision Recital 6 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(6) There is a need to reinforce the collective ability to prepare and respond to disasters notably through mutual support in Europe. In addition to strengthening the possibilities already offered by the European Emergency Response Capacity ('EERC' or 'voluntary pool'), from now on referred to as "European Civil Protection Pool", the Commission should also establish rescEU. The composition of rescEU should include emergency response capacities to respond to wildfires, large-scale floods and earthquakes, as well as a field hospital and medical teams in line with World Health Organisation standards, that can be rapidly deployed. |
(6) There is a need to reinforce the collective ability to train for, prepare for and respond to disasters notably through effective mutual support and cooperation in Europe, with a view to ensuring that interventions are more predictable and that the assistance deployment time is significantly reduced. In addition to strengthening the possibilities already offered by the European Emergency Response Capacity ('EERC' or 'Civil Duty to Assist'), from now on referred to as "European Civil Protection Pool", the Commission should also establish rescEU. The composition of rescEU should include pre-committed joint emergency response capacities to respond to natural or man-made disasters such as wildfires, large-scale floods, earthquakes, terrorist threats or other unforeseen events, including any possible acute lack of medication, as well as a field hospital and medical teams in line with World Health Organisation standards that can be deployed to intervene rapidly and simultaneously in several locations. Operational assets under rescEU should be made available upon request for response operations to address capacity gaps and reinforce efforts provided under the Civil Protection Pool. Special provisions should be made for intervention in the Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories (‘OCTs’), taking account of their remoteness and specificities. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a decision Recital 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
|
(6 a) The role of regional and local authorities in disaster prevention and management is of great importance and their response capacities need to be appropriately involved in any coordination and deployment activities carried out under this Decision, in accordance with Member States' institutional and legal framework, with a view to minimising overlaps and to fostering interoperability. Such authorities can play an important preventive role and they are also the first to react in the aftermath of a disaster, together with their volunteers’ capacities. Therefore, there is a need for on-going cooperation at local, regional and cross-border level with a view to establishing common alert systems for rapid intervention prior to the mobilisation of rescEU, as well as regular public information campaigns on initial response measures. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a decision Recital 6 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
|
(6 b) In order to facilitate a rapid and effective deployment of assistance, the mobilisation of assets under rescEU should also have a territorial dimension and should take into consideration the importance of adopting a regional and, where appropriate, a community-led approach, with a view to appropriately responding to the particularities of the regions and limiting the damage caused by a disaster. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring availability of capacities in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States. Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. |
(7) The Union should be able to support Member States where available material and technical capacities are insufficient to allow for an effective response to disasters, including in the case of cross-border events by contributing to the financing of leasing or rental arrangements for ensuring rapid access to such capacities or by financing their acquisition. This would substantially increase the effectiveness of the Union Mechanism, by ensuring availability of material and technical capacities, including for rescuing elderly persons or persons with disabilities in cases where an effective response to disasters would otherwise not be ensured, particularly for disasters with wide ranging impacts affecting a significant number of Member States. The pre-committed suitable equipment and Union procurement of capacities should allow for economies of scale and better coordination when responding to disasters. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a decision Recital 9 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(9) In order to strengthen efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises and enhance co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities and services it is necessary to establish a Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network that is based on existing structures. |
(9) Training, research and innovation are essential aspects of cooperation in the civil protection field. In order to strengthen efficiency and effectiveness of training and exercises, to promote innovation by incorporating the new technologies such as high-tech equipment and the latest results of research to ensure more effective monitoring of urban and forest areas, as well as to enhance dialogue and co-operation between Member States' national civil protection authorities, and services, including at cross-border level, it is necessary to establish a Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network that is based on existing structures in which researchers, research and training centres of Member States, universities and where appropriate centres of excellence and civil sector organisations are involved. In the case of the outermost regions and OCTs, measures should be taken to ensure that they are also integrated into that network, in parallel with reinforcing training cooperation, as well as prevention and response capacities with third countries in the area. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a decision Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(11) There is a need to simplify Union Mechanism procedures to ensure that Member States can access assistance and capacities needed in order to respond to natural or man-made disasters as rapidly as possible. |
(11) There is a need to simplify, streamline and increase the flexibility of the Union Mechanism procedures to ensure that Member States can quickly access assistance and capacities needed in order to respond to natural or man-made disasters as rapidly and efficiently as possible. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border prevention action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15. Likewise, coherence should be ensured with international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. |
(13) It is important to ensure that Member States and their local and regional authorities take all the necessary actions in order to effectively prevent natural and man-made disasters and mitigate their effects, including by regular management of woodlands, management of combustible materials and carrying out forest planning. Provisions should reinforce links between prevention, preparedness and response actions under the Union Mechanism. Coherence should also be ensured with other relevant Union legislation on prevention and disaster risk management, including for cross-border and inter-municipal prevention and early warning action and response to threats such as serious cross-border health threats15, , including radioactive, biological or chemical accidents. Territorial cooperation programmes under cohesion policy provide for specific actions to take into account disaster resilience, risk prevention and risk management and therefore enhanced efforts for stronger integration and more synergies are needed. Likewise, coherence should be ensured with international commitments such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. Arrangements for better coordination with the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), with a view to responding to natural disasters should also be established. | |||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). |
15 Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a decision Recital 13 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||
|
(13 a) There is a need for Union action to focus also on providing technical training assistance so that the capacity of communities for self-help can be enhanced, leaving them better prepared to provide an initial response and contain a disaster. Targeted training and education for public safety practitioners, such as community leaders, social and medical care practitioners, the rescue and firefighting services as well as local voluntary intervention groups which should dispose of rapidly available intervention equipment, can help contain a disaster and reduce fatalities both during and in the aftermath of the crisis. | |||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point -a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point h | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – point a | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point k | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN) | ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 10 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point d Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 11 – paragraph 10 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 7 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 8 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12 – paragraph 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point f | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 20a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point b – point i Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 26 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Union Civil Protection Mechanism |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0772 – C8-0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
REGI 14.12.2017 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Daniel Buda 7.12.2017 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
24.1.2018 |
27.3.2018 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
26.4.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
25 1 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Pascal Arimont, Victor Boştinaru, Rosa D’Amato, Aleksander Gabelic, Michela Giuffrida, Ivan Jakovčić, Constanze Krehl, Louis-Joseph Manscour, Iskra Mihaylova, Konstantinos Papadakis, Stanislav Polčák, Liliana Rodrigues, Fernando Ruas, Ruža Tomašić, Monika Vana, Matthijs van Miltenburg, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Derek Vaughan, Kerstin Westphal |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Petras Auštrevičius, Daniel Buda, John Howarth, Ivana Maletić, Bronis Ropė, Damiano Zoffoli |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Marek Plura, Boris Zala |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
25 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Petras Auštrevičius, Ivan Jakovčić, Iskra Mihaylova, Matthijs van Miltenburg |
|
EFDD |
Rosa D’Amato |
|
PPE |
Pascal Arimont, Daniel Buda, Ivana Maletić, Marek Plura, Stanislav Polčák, Fernando Ruas, Lambert van Nistelrooij |
|
S&D |
Victor Boştinaru, Aleksander Gabelic, Michela Giuffrida, John Howarth, Constanze Krehl, Louis-Joseph Manscour, Liliana Rodrigues, Derek Vaughan, Kerstin Westphal, Boris Zala, Damiano Zoffoli |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Bronis Ropė, Monika Vana |
|
1 |
- |
|
NI |
Konstantinos Papadakis |
|
1 |
0 |
|
ECR |
Ruža Tomašić |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
4.4.2018
POSITION IN THE FORM OF AMENDMENTS
of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(COM)2017/0772 – C8‑0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD))
On behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality: Angelika Mlinar (rapporteur)
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality presents the following amendments to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a decision Recital 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) Gender equality is a fundamental value of the Union – as recognised by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which the Union has committed to integrating into all its activities. In particular, Article 8 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union lays down the principle of gender mainstreaming, stating that “in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women;” | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a decision Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action. To that effect, Member States should share risk assessments on a regular basis as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to disaster management, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. In addition, the Commission should be able to require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans in relation to specific disasters, notably with a view to maximising overall Union support to disaster risk management. Administrative burden should be reduced and prevention policies strengthened, including by ensuring necessary links to other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/20131. |
(5) Prevention is of key importance for protection against disasters and requires further action. To that effect, Member States should share risk assessments on a regular basis as well as summaries of their disaster risk management planning in order to ensure an integrated approach to disaster management, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. Member States should ensure comprehensive gender-sensitive programing since natural and human-made disasters, as well as environmental policies impact men and women differently. Therefore, in order to develop equitable and effective disaster risk reduction and strengthen civil protection mechanisms, gender issues need to be incorporated in all phases from prevention to preparedness and response processes, including shared risk assessments, crisis management interventions both in conflict and post-conflict situations. In addition, the Commission should be able to require Member States to provide specific prevention and preparedness plans in relation to specific disasters, notably with a view to maximising overall Union support to disaster risk management. Administrative burden should be reduced and prevention policies strengthened, including by ensuring necessary links to other key Union policies and instruments, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds as listed in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/20131. | ||||||||||||||||||
_____________________ |
_____________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). |
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(7a) In all its actions, the Union should take into account that in addition to the immediate effects of a disaster, women may have specific health care needs. Member States and the Union should as a priority ensure that pregnant women receive the necessary health care. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(7b) Sanitary and hygienic facilities, services and resources should be provided during all the stages of risk management, with special consideration and awareness to the particular needs of women and girls. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a decision Recital 7 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(7c) Women and girls are at an increased risk of experiencing physical and sexual violence in emergency settings. Therefore, it is vital that disaster management projects include measures to prevent and effectively respond to gender-based violence such as measures to keep women safe in wake of a disaster, while providing services to support victims of gender-based violence with healthcare, psychological support and other types of assistance. Issues related to violence against women and girls should be integrated into existing risk reduction and emergency response training and manuals. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a decision Recital 9 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(9a) In order to prevent and respond in a more effective way to the particular risks women and girls face in emergency settings, the staff and personnel working for the planning, deployment and managing in the field of disaster risk management and civil protection, should receive gender-sensitive training. For this purpose, the ongoing dialogue and work between the Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network with networks and organisations of women’s rights defenders with an expertise in the field of environmental disasters, is of utmost importance to gain a fully transversal approach to prevention, preparedness and response to disasters in the Union and in the Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism. |
(10) In order to achieve the functioning of the rescEU capacity, additional financial appropriations should made available to finance actions under the Union Mechanism, but not at the expense of the financial envelopes allocated to other key Union policies such as those promoting rights, equality and citizenship, justice or human development worldwide including all the funds allocated to gender equality and women’s empowerment programmes and projects, in particular, having in mind that the implementation of some of these programmes has been exceptionally successful (payment allocations for REC reached more than 99% in the previous three years). | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship (REC) and Justice programmes. Almost 100% absorption rate for the REC programme implies that no new resources can be deployed from this programme without negatively affecting specific projects and organizations. FEMM has been continuously pointing out the need to increase the funding of the REC in view of DAPHNE and gender equality programmes. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(10 a) Separate funding and budgetary allocations should be guaranteed for the revised Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Considering the need to avoid any negative impact on the financing of existing multiannual programmes, the increase in financing for the targeted revision of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 should be drawn exclusively from all means available under Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/20131a, with particular recourse to the Flexibility Instrument. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
___________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
1a Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884). | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a decision Recital 10 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(10b) The planning and allocation of funding and budgeting for the revised Union Civil Protection Mechanism should incorporate the use of the gender-budgeting perspective, entailing a gender-based assessment to better incorporate a gender perspective to deal with emergency crisis in risk management and disaster prevention efforts. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 12a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
This additional paragraph seeks to introduce gender sensitivity in the Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network through trainings and manuals. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new) Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
This additional paragraph seeks to introduce gender sensitivity to gathering of disaster data. For promotion and enhancement of cooperation, data and statistics are key in understanding and eventually in responding to disaster risks. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is clear that the relevant data should be disaggregated. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a decision Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 Decision No 1313/2013/EU Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
New policy proposals should be accompanied by new resources. The rapporteur strongly rejects the use of any redeployments at the expense of successful, chronically underfunded programmes such as the Rights, equality and citizenship and Justice programmes. |
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Union Civil Protection Mechanism |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0772 – C8-0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
FEMM 8.2.2018 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Angelika Mlinar 21.2.2018 |
||||
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title |
Union Civil Protection Mechanism |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0772 – C8-0409/2017 – 2017/0309(COD) |
||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
23.11.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ENVI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Committees asked for opinions Date announced in plenary |
AFET 14.12.2017 |
DEVE 14.12.2017 |
BUDG 14.12.2017 |
REGI 14.12.2017 |
|
|
FEMM 8.2.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
AFET 20.3.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Associated committees Date announced in plenary |
DEVE 15.3.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Rapporteurs Date appointed |
Elisabetta Gardini 16.1.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
20.3.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
17.5.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
48 8 5 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Pilar Ayuso, Zoltán Balczó, Ivo Belet, Biljana Borzan, Paul Brannen, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Nessa Childers, Birgit Collin-Langen, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Angélique Delahaye, Stefan Eck, Bas Eickhout, José Inácio Faria, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Francesc Gambús, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Jens Gieseke, Julie Girling, Sylvie Goddyn, Françoise Grossetête, Andrzej Grzyb, Jytte Guteland, György Hölvényi, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Benedek Jávor, Urszula Krupa, Jo Leinen, Peter Liese, Lukas Mandl, Valentinas Mazuronis, Susanne Melior, Rory Palmer, Massimo Paolucci, Piernicola Pedicini, Bolesław G. Piecha, Pavel Poc, John Procter, Julia Reid, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Davor Škrlec, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Ivica Tolić, Nils Torvalds, Adina-Ioana Vălean, Damiano Zoffoli |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Nikos Androulakis, Nicola Caputo, Esther Herranz García, Jan Huitema, Peter Jahr, Karol Karski, Ulrike Müller, Stanislav Polčák, Bart Staes, Dubravka Šuica, Tiemo Wölken |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
John Flack, Jaromír Kohlíček, Miltiadis Kyrkos |
||||
Date tabled |
23.5.2018 |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
48 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Valentinas Mazuronis, Ulrike Müller, Nils Torvalds |
|
ECR |
Karol Karski, Urszula Krupa, Bolesław G. Piecha |
|
EFDD |
Piernicola Pedicini |
|
PPE |
Pilar Ayuso, Ivo Belet, Birgit Collin-Langen, Angélique Delahaye, José Inácio Faria, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Francesc Gambús, Elisabetta Gardini, Jens Gieseke, Françoise Grossetête, Andrzej Grzyb, Esther Herranz García, György Hölvényi, Peter Jahr, Peter Liese, Lukas Mandl, Stanislav Polčák, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Ivica Tolić, Dubravka Šuica, Adina-Ioana Vălean |
|
S&D |
Nikos Androulakis, Biljana Borzan, Paul Brannen, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Nicola Caputo, Nessa Childers, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Jytte Guteland, Miltiadis Kyrkos, Jo Leinen, Susanne Melior, Rory Palmer, Massimo Paolucci, Pavel Poc, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Tiemo Wölken, Damiano Zoffoli |
|
8 |
- |
|
ALDE |
Jan Huitema |
|
ECR |
John Flack, John Procter |
|
ENF |
Sylvie Goddyn |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Bas Eickhout, Benedek Jávor, Davor Škrlec, Bart Staes |
|
5 |
0 |
|
EFDD |
Julia Reid |
|
GUE/NGL |
Stefan Eck, Jaromír Kohlíček |
|
NI |
Zoltán Balczó |
|
PPE |
Julie Girling |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention