The effects of COVID 19 have indicated that the EUSF help only covers the restoration of the status quo and not the cases at hand. The status quo ante of infrastructure in water, health, education, energy, telecommunications and wastewater have been put at the forefront. The additional costs of rebuilding more disaster and climate-resilient infrastructures have called for the European green deal. The beneficiary state finances the European Green Deal from other unions and its resources. The associations that help in the funding of the Green Deal include European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. There should be higher levels of synergies between the EUSF and cohesion policy instruments.
There have been calls on the CommissionCommission in identifying the areas prone to specific natural disasters or recurrent natural disasters. the CommissionCommission also has to propose an action plan on mitigating risk and anticipatory activities that are targeted. Most importantly, the CommissionCommission is called upon to offer revision of the European Union Solidarity Fund in establishing a more targeted, timely and effective rapid response mechanism in areas and regions prone to current or specific natural disasters.
The European Union cohesion has been adversely challenged during the pandemic. 39% of Austrians expect a weakening of cohesion, and 16% will be strengthened. 30% of the population believe that the EU membership during such a period is advantageous. 17% disagrees, and 43% agrees that there is no difference. 75% invite a temporary suspension of EU deficit rules, while 12% are sceptical. 4/10 victims agree that transferring further health policy competencies would make sense to the EU to counter border health risks. 42% of the population disagrees.
The EU could not meet the citizens’ expectations during the COVID 19 pandemic. There was an initial uncoordinated approach of the EU member states to dealing with the crisis, which immediately impacted EU public opinion. There was a lack of official competencies in health policy that the victims knew. According to a meeting held on 30th June 2020, President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Charles Michel of the European Union and Ursula Von der Leyen of the European Commission shared their commitment towards global cooperation. They also talked about partnering to overcome the pandemic and its aftermath.
They also discussed various issues like strengthening the response capacities and sharing of information through respective health authorities and centres for controlling diseases. They talked of ensuring access to medical products and cooperation in the R&D of infectious disease vaccines and therapeutics. They include the provision of a future vaccine to curb COVID 19 as a global common good. There was also the plan to reaffirm more robust support for the WHO in combatting COVID 19 globally. Lastly, they discussed emphasizing the commitment to parties towards helping countries that partner with them to overcome the challenges of COVID 19. That is through the development assistance and supporting those countries’ healthcare systems.
In conclusion, as the European Union Solidarity Fund package comes out of the European Council negotiations of 17th to 21st July 2020, it combines various instruments. They include loans and grants. Also, different issues are addressed, which have health and economic issues. There are also multiple timelines set, including reforms, loans, grants and rebates fading in and out. These satisfy various national demands and needs. The overall logic of this deal does not always equate to fair self-evidence to all federal electorates. There is enough room for victims or, instead, citizens in the North to feel exploited and those in the south to feel short-changed. In maintaining and broadening public support, it’s important to point out the insurance character portrayed and focus on what the policies state.
Hochrainer, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Mechler, R. (2010). The European Union Solidarity F