What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Added:B. whereas the estimation of the enormous impact of the storms and floods on the regions’ economy is of EUR 18 billion, affecting 63 industrial areas, 64 000 companies (99,6 % of which are SMEs), 250 000 workers, and 243 388 compensation claims, as stipulated by the studies presented by the regional government of Valencia and the Valencian Business Confederation;

Changed:2. Welcomes the decision as a tangible and visible form of the Union’s solidarity with its citizens and the regions in the affected areas;areas, but notes that such solidarity cannot replace the direct responsibility of local, regional and national authorities in preventing and managing climate-related natural disasters;

Changed:4. Highlights the increasing number of severe, destructive and deadly natural disasters in Europe and calls on Member States and the Commission to investincrease investments in prevention, public infrastructure, climate mitigation and adaptation as well as emergency preparedness measures to avoid human and economic losses; calls on Member States to take into consideration that climate risks and other natural disasters disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and small and medium enterprises due to socio-economic factors;and demographic factors as well as vulnerable territories such as outermost regions; considers that it is essential to ensure a high level of democratic scrutiny by the budgetbudgetary authority of the EUSF; recalls that the EUSF orhas itsa equivalentlimited shouldbudget beand expandedcannot inbe viewregarded ofas the Commissionsole proposalinstrument onfor theaddressing newmajor Multiannualnatural Financialdisasters; Frameworkcalls andtherefore subsequentfor inter-institutionalan negotiationsassessment of the Union budget’s financial capacity and thatfor theconsideration EUSFof ora possible increase in its equivalentresources mustin order to provide assistance commensurate to the magnitude of such disasters to citizens; notes that substantially increasing thethis EUSFkind of assistance would allow Member States to respond more effectively and quickly to disasters while other instruments, particularly cohesion funds whose primary purpose is not disaster response, could be preserved;

Changed:5. Stresses that the EUSF is only a curative instrument and that the Union should also continue to address climate change adaptation and mitigation by supporting European and national policies to prevent natural disasters;disasters as well as underpinning the “build back better” principle in all its actions; underlines that EEA Report No 1/2024 ‘European Climate Risk Assessment’ warned that the Union is unprepared for the effects of climate change and stresses the need for action to avoid the climate risks identified reaching critical levels; calls on Member States and the Commission to take the necessary measures to bring the Union to achieve the commitments made in the Paris Agreement; recalls the need for effective synergies with other Union policies and programmes and underlines that Member States should make best use of funding opportunities in particular, of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund+ and the rural development programmes; calls on the Commission to assess with due urgency any reasoned requests by Member States to reallocate funds within the National Recovery and Resilience plans to natural disaster assistance, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council;Council, especially when taking into account the high percentage of resources from this mechanism that are still unspent; stresses also the need for preventive measures, not only to mitigate future damage but also to prevent the exacerbation of risk conditions following catastrophic events, such as floods, wildfires, landslides or the drying up of lakes and rivers; further stresses the risks that extreme weather and natural disasters such as heatwaves possess for the public health across Europe and calls on the Commission to consider this aspect in relevant policies; encourages the use of innovative digital tools, satellite data (e.g. Copernicus), and early-warning systems to enhance disaster preparedness; underlines the importance of adequate flexibility between the different programmes; underscores that assistance provided under the EUSF should not be to the detriment of Union funding received by Member States under other Union policies or programmes; recalls that Member States can grant State aid, in accordance with the applicable Union rules, notably for agricultural businesses that have suffered damages due to natural disasters;