Activities of Simone SCHMIEDTBAUER related to 2020/2087(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the review of the European Union Solidarity Fund
Amendments (24)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will, that has sometimes been lacking, to provide mutual assistance at Union level;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, Parliament pointed out that solidarity among the Member States was not an option, but an obligation, stemming inter alia from Articles 2 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and was part and parcel of our European values, as set out in Article 3 of the TEU;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. noting with interest that, according to a recent survey, more than two thirds of Europeans believe that the European Union should equip itself with more resources to deal with unexpected crises, such as COVID-19;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Fund’s regulatory framework was revised in 2014 by amending Regulation (EU) No 661/2014, in particular with a view to simplifying procedures, shortening the time frame for replying after the submission of applications, clarifying the eligibility criteria ofor requests for assistance in the event of regional disasters, extending the implementation period and introducing advance payments, as called for by Parliament on several occasions; whereas, however, further progress is neededfurther progress has been achieved through the March 2020 amendment of the Regulation especially as regards the increase of the level of advance payments and the simplification of the EUSF mobilisation;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. regretting, however, thatwhereas, although the reform of the regulation in 2014 contributed to a 12% reduction in the time between the submission of the application for assistance and the relevant payment, the period required in order for the full grant to be deployed is still too long when the aid is being urgently awaitedlong;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. regretting, likewise, thatwhereas the Fund’s assistance does not cover the additional costs of rebuilding energy- and resource- efficient infrastructure that is more disaster-resilient and climate-resilient, as called for in the European Green Deal;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. noting with interest that, as illustrated by the COVID-19 crisis, there is a high degree of complementarity between cohesion policy instruments and the EUSF, the fund which responds to natural disasters in the short and medium term, while cohesion policy is geared to longer- term planning with regard to civil protection and, preventive and risk management infrastructure, as well as resilience measures, contributing to the objectives of the European Green Deal;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. regretting that people in the EU are not very aware of the exwhereas more efforts should be done to increase the visibility of EUSF assisteance ofn the Solidarity Fundground, which is not very evident for citizens, in particular because the Fund largely intervenes only after reconstruction work has been completed, in the form of reimbursements;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Draws attention to events such as COVID-19, which isthe fact that the risks of natural, ecological and health disasters have now become systemic: the COVID-19 pandemic severely affeimpacting all of Europethe lives of all Europeans and the whole economy, forest fires across the continent, including in unusual places such as the Arctic, and the series of violent earthquakes in Europe, particularly in Italy in 2016-2017, causing hundreds of deaths and some EUR 22 billion in damage, ands well as in Croatia in March 2020 and December 2020; points out, moreover, that storms, extreme rainfall and flooding have caused considerable damage in many cities and valleys, and that increasingly violent hurricanes have caused devastation in the outermost regions, such as Hurricane Irma in 2017 in Saint-Martin, and Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 in the Azores, which were particularly destructive; reminds in this context that fragile territories, such as islands, are often the most affected by the impact of climate change;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that it is vital that aid and funds bare sent every more rapidlyas rapidly as possible to affected regions, and that links with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the ERDF climate-change adaptation component, as well as with territorial cooperation programmes are essential in order to create a comprehensive response and resilience package;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 89 #
11. Calls onInvites the Commission, in the context of a future reform, to continue its work on simplifying the EUSF mobilisation to ensure a swifter response to the intensification of natural disasters, especially at regional level;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Points to the difficulties faced by beneficiary countries when it comes to determining the precise amount of damage in a very short period of time and suggests that the Commission consider alternativeprepares guidance on simplified methods to be used for determining how much the Fund should contributethe contribution of the Fund;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Draws particular attention to the situation of local authorities which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased technical and operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 116 #
18. Points out that in its revised proposal of 27 May 2020 on the MFF 2021-2027 the Commission provided for a maximum annual budget of EUR 1 billion for the EUSF (in 2018 prices) and therefore notes with concernbut notes that under the agreement on the new MFF, the EUSF has been merged with the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) into a new ‘Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve’ (SEAR) package, with an overall annual budgetary allocation of EUR 1.2 billion;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that the establishment of a SEAR may have the advantage of some flexibility, but noteproviding for flexibility; points out nevertheless that, in its current form, the EUSF allocation remains uncertain, since it depends on the amounts mobilised by the EAR; undertakes, accordingly,considers necessary to closely to monitor the management of the SEAR in order to see whether the funding amount and allocation key provided for in this new financial instrument meet the needs of the EUSF, in view of the extension of its scope and the scale and proliferation of emergencies resulting, in particular, from climate change;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the fact that the revised EUSF adopted in AprilMarch 2020 has increased the level of advance payments from 10% to 25% of the amount of the financial contribution anticipated and the maximum amount of the advances from EUR 30 million to EUR 100 million; points out, however, that for countries facing major disasters, the effectiveness of the Fund is directly linked to the level of advance payments andin this context the importance of advance payments for increasing the effectiveness of interventions and calls for increased efforts to be made isn of the view that it should be much higher, amounting to at least 33%rder to reduce the average time of their release;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes with regret that it takesMoreover, notes that, on average, it takes one year for the entire grant to reach the beneficiary and that the Fund cannot therefore, under the current conditions, claim to act as an instrument for rapid intervention; calls on the Commission to expedite payment procedures and to explore ways of simplifying, as much as; calls on the Commission to explore ways of simplifying the mobilisation of the Fund to the biggest extent possible, in the administrative procedcontext of a futures required to access aform in order to ensure a rapid, in order totervention and prompt relievef for disaster- stricken regions and/or countries from unnecessary administrative burdens; believes in this regard that an assessment of the EUSF budget might become necessary in the future;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls for the criteria for determining operations that are ‘eligible’ for assistance from the Fund to take greater account of the latest risk prevention principles, so as to enablewith a view to countries to improve the qualitybuting to the improvement of their infrastructure quality during reconstruction and thus be better prepared to deal with disasters;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility of the Fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities, andin parallel to making the rapid response and delivery of aid a priority, in order specifically to highlight the Union’s added value in the event of natural and health disasters and its ability to put genuine mutual assistance into practice by providing significant budgetary resources;