Activities of Olivier CHASTEL related to 2020/2127(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the effectiveness of Member States’ use of EU Solidarity Fund money in cases of natural disasters
Amendments (19)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates the importance of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in providing financial assistance to Member States and regions hit by natural disasters; takes note of the recent revisions made to the instrument; welcomes the recent extension of the EUSF’s scope to major public health emergencies; recalls the increases made to the advance payments of the EUSF, which increased the value of advance payments from 10 % to 25 % of the anticipated financial contribution and the upper limit from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million;
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
— having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 18 May 2021 on the review of the European Union Solidarity Fund (2020/2087(INI)),
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was established in 2002 as a reaction to the severe floods in Central Europe in the summer of 2002; whereas it was created to provide financial assistance to Member States and candidate countries affected by natural disasters, such as flooding, earthquakes, or storms; whereas the EUSF has become one of the main EU instruments for disaster recovery, as well as an concrete expression of solidarity in the EU;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the number and severity of emergencies is unpredictable; remains concerned about the EUSF’s annual ceiling for the period 2021-2027; regrets that, due to budgetary constraints, countries applying for support as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 will receive under 50 % of the potential aid amountcalls that, for the budgetary period of 2021-2027, the EUSF was merged with the Emergency Aid Reserve in the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR), with a maximum annual ceiling of EUR 1,2 billion; notes that, due to budgetary constraints, countries applying for support as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 will receive under 50 % of the potential aid amount; considers it necessary to monitor the management of SEAR in order to see whether the funding amount and allocation key provided have an effect on the effectiveness of the EUSF, in view of the extension of its scope and the scale;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the EUSF is one of the most concrete expressions of EU solidarity, and all EU citizens expect it to be shown when natural disasters or serious public health emergencies occur; whereas solidarity between Member States is a core value of our Union but also an obligation from Articles 2 and 21 TFUE
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Regrets the lengthy process for the advance payments and final payments in such difficult circumstances and calls on the Commission to accelerate the process of assessment, ensuring that citizens in need can benefit from the Union's support in a timely manner;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EUSF’s regulatory framework was amended in 2014 and in 2020, reflecting a need to simplify the procedures and to extend the scope of the Fund to include public health emergencies such as Covid 19;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. SNotes that on average, the time taken to deploy the full grant on the ground is about 1 year; stresses the need for rapid mobilisation of the EUSF; recalls that the effects of disasters and emergencies are often difficult to gauge; calls, therefore, for timely and flexible assessment of eligible expenditure, in line with the principles of sound financial management, as well as hands-on support to Member States, in particular for damage estimation; highlights that effective implementation of the EUSF grant is contingent upon effective governance structures and institutional coordination in the affected Member State; calls on the Commission to ensure the dissemination of good practices with regard to governance and the use of institutional coordination structures in disaster situations;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) provides for a new budgetary package called the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR), which brings together the EUSF and the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) and is designed to respond, on the one hand, to emergencies arising from major disasters in Member States or accession countries (EUSF) and, on the other hand, to specific urgent needs in the EU or in non-EU countries, in particular in the event of humanitarian crises (EAR);
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas some regions are structurally vulnerable to certain recurrent natural disasters such as floods, intense seismic, volcanic activity, or public health crises and thus require a special pro-active approach;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomUnderlines the fact that between 2002 and 2020, the EUSF mobilised more than EUR 6.5 billion for interventions in 96 disaster events in 23 Member States and one accession country; notes that the highest number of applications were submitted to cover damage caused by flooding, with more than 60 % of supported disasters belonging to this category; notes further that earthquakes were the events provoking the biggest overall damage in financial terms, accounting for 48 % of support provided under the EUSF;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises the curative nature of the EUSF, and therefore the need for effective synergies with other Union policies and programmes, in particular with the European Structural and Investment Funds, the European Green Deal and those supporting disaster prevention and risk management; calls for a revision of the EUSF to ensure that ‘build back better’ is incentivised;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the lack of visibility of the EUSF, which means the role of the Union is not always clearly demonstrated; regrets that the EUSF Regulation contains neither an obligation to publicise EUSF support nor any reporting requirement on this.; highlights that good practices have been identified in affected Member States for communicating about EUSF support, such as the use of flags and EU logos; calls on the Member States to publicise the EUSF financial assistance and to signal the works and services that will be financed by the EUSF;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recalls the importance of the respect of the rule of law principle and the importance of safeguarding the financial interests of EU and considers therefore that the Commission, the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF), the Court of Auditors and, where applicable, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) should be able to use the information and monitoring system within their competences and rights;
Amendment 22 #
5 a. Underlines the strong added value of the fund to support emergency measures and reconstruction efforts and to ease the financial burden on national, regional, and local authorities even if improvements in terms of speed, consistency, efficiency and promotion of interventions are to be implemented;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Regrets that the EUSF Regulation does not currently allow for the submission of aid applications on a cross- border basis, even though certain areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters, such as mountainous regions, often span borders;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Recalls EUSF assistance only covers the restoration of the status quo ante of infrastructure in the fields of energy, water and waste water, telecommunications, transport, health and education, and not the additional costs of rebuilding more disaster-resilient and climate-resilient infrastructure, as called for in the European Green Deal, which has to be financed by the beneficiary state from own resources and other EU funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund; calls on a higher level of synergies between Cohesion policy instruments and the EUSF;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Points out that it is vital for aid and funds to be sent as quickly, easily and flexibly as possible to the affected regions and underlines that synergies between the EUSF and the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, the ERDF climate change adaptation component and territorial cooperation programmes are essential in order to create a comprehensive response and resilience package; calls on the Commission to continue its work on the guidance for the EUSF’s simplified usage in order to facilitate the actions of national, regional and local authorities; insists that synergies between the EUSF and the other EU funding instruments, among others, should be used flexibly and to their fullest extent; recalls that the implementation report by each beneficiary country should detail the preventive measures – including the use of EU structural funds – taken or proposed to limit future damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar natural disasters;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18 c. Invites the Commission, in the context of a future reform of the EUSF, to continue its work to simplify and speed up the application procedure for Member States, for example by paying particular attention to simplifying applications for activation of the EUSF across several regions in the context of cross-border disasters, so as to ensure a swifter response to the intensification of major and regional natural disasters and major public health emergencies;