Activities of José Manuel FERNANDES 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 (14)
Amendment 3 #
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, fires, droughts or storms; whereas the EUSF has become one of the main EU instruments for disaster recovery, as well as an expression of solidarity in the EU;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas EUSF spending has increased from a five-year average of roughly EUR 270 million from 2002-2015, to a five-year average of EUR 534 million in the period from 2016-2020; whereas this increase is caused by a combination of an increase in damage and an increase in the amount paid out per euro of damage; whereas such increase is also a reflection of the added value of the Fund;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas due to climate change, the severity and frequency of natural disasters and public health emergencies will certainly increase further, increasing also the need for a strong and well- implemented mechanism for disaster recovery;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that, despite the prominence of the COVID-19 crisis, the EUSF needs to continue to provide support to countries recovering from natural disasters; remains concerned about the sufficiency of EUSF funding, especially given the extension of its scope and the merger with the Emergency Aid Reserve in the MFF 2021-2027; notes that the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR) has a maximum ceiling of EUR 1,2 billion;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Underlines the need to release financial assistance through the EUSF to the regions and areas that are particularly affected by natural disasters in the Union; considers that the financial assistance provided by the Fund shall be subject to a fair distribution between the most affected regions and areas of the Member States;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the important role of local authorities, namely municipalities, NGOs and civil society in supplying field data to the local and national authorities; highlights, therefore, that effective cooperation with local authorities and NGOs can also enhance the quality of applications; calls on the Member States to develop effective coordination mechanisms to make full use of the contribution of NGOs;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that data collection for applications to the EUSF on the basis of public health crises is a novelty for countries, and may therefore prove particularly challenging; calls on the Commission to pay special attention to this matter and to support countries in all possible ways, including through the provision of technical support;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern that the length of time between a disaster and the full payment of aid, as reported by the Commission in its annual reports on the EUSF, remains one of the central challenges of the EUSF; emphasises that this is of special importance in the current situation, as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change will likely trigger the number of applications to increase substantially, which could lead to further delays; takes note of the Commission’s view that the scope for accelerating the decision-making process for EUSF mobilisation has been fully exploited through the changes introduced in the 2014 EUSF revision and that scope for further accelerating mobilisation of the EUSF is limited; recalls that a rapid response to emergency situations can be crucial to guaranteeing the effective functioning of the EUSF; emphasises that this is especially relevant in regions with limited alternative funding sources; calls on the Commission to exhaust all possible avenues to accelerate the mobilisation of the EUSF under the new MFF arrangements, particularly in the case of less developed regions;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes with regret the evaluation’s finding that the implementation reports provided by recipient countries vary significantly in terms of length, content, and level of detail of data; notes with concern that due to this variation, it is not possible to undertake systematic and comparative analyses of achievements or to compare planned with actual outcomes; further notes that the analysed case studies revealed frequent differences between the assumptions made about the priorities for EUSF support in the implementing agreement and what was actually required on the ground; is concerned that this lack of information and comparable data hinders the effective monitoring of the EUSF’s implementation by the Commission and potentially threatens the economical, effective and efficient use of the EUSF, with a negative impact in the promotion of territorial, economic and social cohesion in the EU;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes the evidence from the case studies in the external evaluation report that implementing the full public procurement process in the limited time available in a crisis situation was challenging for some beneficiary states; stresses the importance of ensuring that public procurement procedures are followed by Member States in response to crisis situations; emphasises that any derogations have to ensure the compliance of procurement procedures with the principles of sound financial management and the protection of the Union’s financial interests, including at regional and local levels;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Calls on each beneficiary country to 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 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Insists that the role of the budgetary authority be fully safeguarded; notes that, under the new multiannual framework, EUSF appropriations are entered in the general budget and made available via transfers; stresses the need to for timely information on such transfers and, regardless of the new procedure, for the Commission to provide the same level information as in the previous MFF; regrets, also, the absence of detailed background information on applications for EUSF support, which hampers scrutiny, and insists that the Commission provide "all available information" in line with Article 4 of the Regulation establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. 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 Member States have developed good practices for communicating about EUSF support, such as the use of flags and EU logos; calls on the Member States to publicise EUSF financial assistance and to signal the works and services that have been or will be financed by the EUSF; expects that the future revision of the EUSF regulation will include the obligation to publicise and communicate about EUSF support, for example via national media and other outlets, to ensure that citizens are informed;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Emphasizes that future challenges, either concerning climate change or public health emergencies, require primarily a preventive policy, whereas the EUSF is curative in nature; underlines, therefore, the need for effective synergies with other Union policies and programmes, in particular the cohesion policy funds, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Green Deal and those supporting disaster prevention and risk management; calls for a revision of the EUSF to ensure that the "build back together" principle is enshrined;