7 Amendments of Vlad GHEORGHE related to 2020/2127(INI)
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 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 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 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 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;