2020/2127(INI) The effectiveness of Member States' use of EU Solidarity Fund money in cases of natural disasters
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | CONT | CREȚU Corina ( S&D) | FERNANDES José Manuel ( EPP), CHASTEL Olivier ( Renew), CZARNECKI Ryszard ( ECR), OMARJEE Younous ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | BIEDROŃ Robert ( S&D) | Georgios KYRTSOS ( PPE), Henrike HAHN ( Verts/ALE), Mauri PEKKARINEN ( RE), Silvia MODIG ( GUE/NGL), Hélène LAPORTE ( ID) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
2021/07/01
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2021/06/23
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/10/28
EP - CREȚU Corina (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2020/09/30
EP - BIEDROŃ Robert (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2020/09/17
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
Documents
Activities
- Fabio Massimo CASTALDO
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Corina CREȚU
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Karol KARSKI
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
20 |
2020/2127(INI)
2021/06/07
BUDG
20 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion 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 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets the disparity in the means available in each country to assess the amount of damage based on data collected by local authorities and satellite surveys and the consequent errors in the proposed assessments;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the role of the budgetary authority be fully safeguarded; notes that, under the new multiannual financial framework (MFF), EUSF appropriations are entered in the general budget and made available via transfers; stresses the need for timely information on such transfers; regrets, also, the absence of detailed background information on applications for EUSF support, which hampers scrutiny; demands, despite the new procedure, that the Commission provides the same level of information as it did in the previous MFF;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion 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 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
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion 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 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, declaring that no funds will be assigned to repairing damage without a study on the viability of the projects;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion 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 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to avoid duplication of funds when the regions concerned are already beneficiaries of other EU programmes;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Regrets the lack of visibility of the EUSF, which means the role of the Union is not always clearly demonstrated, especially in all European languages and via accessible channels; regrets that the EUSF Regulation contains neither an obligation to publicise EUSF support nor any reporting requirement on this
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion 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
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion 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
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion 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 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Reiterates the importance of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in providing financial assistance to Member States and regions, including in the neighbourhood of the EU, hit by natural disasters; welcomes the recent extension of the EUSF’s scope to major public health emergencies; regrets that the extension of the scope has not been matched by an extension of the envelope;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for justification, by means of an audit of the proper use of European funds, of the aid received by beneficiary countries which are at the end of the reconstruction process;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion 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; welcomes the recent extension of the EUSF’s scope to major public health emergencies; strongly supports the recent reform of the advance payment system, which raises the level of advances from 10% to 25% of the expected contribution and from a maximum of EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion 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; welcomes the recent extension of the EUSF’s scope to major public health emergencies, since the occurrence of new pandemics in the medium term cannot be ruled out;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the number and severity of emergencies is unpredictable; re
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the number and severity of emergencies is unpredictable; highlights, however, that due to climate change, the number and severity of natural disasters will increase over time and will become costlier; 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 amount;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion 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 3.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Emphasises that in cases of severe earthquakes, such as the ones recently witnessed in Croatia, the mitigation of the consequences inherently takes more time than with other natural disasters; stresses that any future revision of the European Solidarity Fund (EUSF) should recognise this substantial difference, specifically in regard to sufficient absorption time beyond the current application deadlines;
source: 693.755
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-07-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-692715_EN.html
|
2021-07-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1 |
|
2021-06-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
procedure/title |
Old
How effectively did Member States use the money from the EU through the Solidarity Fund (in cases of natural disasters)New
The effectiveness of Member States' use of EU Solidarity Fund money in cases of natural disasters |
2021-06-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-693827_EN.html
|
2021-06-23Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
docs |
|
2021-06-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2021-05-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
commission |
|
2021-05-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
events/0/body |
EP
|
2021-05-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
2021-04-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1/group |
Old
Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green LeftNew
The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL |
2021-03-03Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
2021-02-24Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
2021-02-17Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
2021-02-16Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
2020-12-09Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
197498
|
2020-11-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
2020-10-06Show (1) Changes
committees/1/rapporteur |
|