Report from the Commission - European Union Solidarity Fund - Annual report 2002-2003 and Report on the experience gained after one year of applying the new instrument
Date: 2004-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, activity report, aid to disaster victims, emergency aid, financial aid, natural disaster

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 26.5.2004 
COM(2004) 397 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

European Union Solidarity Fund 
Annual report 2002-2003 
and 
Report on the experience gained after one year of applying the new instrument 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 3 

Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The Commission response to the summer floods of 2002 ........................................... 4 

The Council Regulation establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund ................ 5 

Budgetary issues: Financing Solidarity........................................................................ 7 

Part 1:  Annual Report 2002-2003............................................................................................ 8 

1. 

2. 

Implementation of the Fund in 2002............................................................................ 8 

Implementation of the Fund in 2003.......................................................................... 10 

Part 2:  How the Regulation was applied................................................................................ 14 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

General notions .......................................................................................................... 14 

Exceptional intervention of the Fund......................................................................... 20 

The neighbouring country criterion ........................................................................... 20 

Regional disasters....................................................................................................... 20 

Determination of the amount of aid ........................................................................... 23 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 25 

Overall assessment of the implementation of the Fund ........................................................... 25 

Operational guidelines for future action................................................................................... 26 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 28 

Annex 1: European Union Solidarity Fund applications in 2002 ............................................ 28 

Annex 2: European Union Solidarity Fund applications in 2003 ............................................ 29 

Annex 3:  Summary Application Form to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund 

(EUSF) ....................................................................................................................... 30 

Annex 4:  Summary Guidelines for EUSF Applications – Operational Manual ..................... 34 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
FOREWORD 

The  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund1  was  created  in  response  to  the  extraordinary 
flooding disaster that hit central Europe during the summer of 2002 and entered into 
force on 15 November 20022. Article 12 of the Regulation provides that a report on 
the activity of the Fund in the previous year be presented to the European Parliament 
and  to  the  Council.  This  first  annual  report  covers  the  6  week  period  from  the 
creation of the Fund until the end of 2002 and the year 2003. 

Applying  the  Regulation  to  the  15  applications  introduced  since  November  20023 
required  a  degree  of  interpretation  in  the  light  of  the  concrete  circumstance  of  the 
disaster under scrutiny. Council requested the Commission to draw up a report on the 
method  used  in  applying  the  Regulation  during  the  first  year  of  experience.  Two 
points should be given particular attention: (1) the appropriateness and justification 
of the Commission’s method for determining in each case the amount of the aid, and 
(2) the way in which the Commission applied the specific criteria of the Regulation’s 
provisions for the exceptional mobilisation of the Fund for “regional disasters”4. 

The following report is therefore composed of two main parts: Part one looks at the 
activity of the Fund in 2002 and 2003. Part two focuses on the method developed by 
the  Commission  for  applying  the  Regulation.  Particular  attention  is  paid  to  the 
criteria  for  extraordinary  regional  disasters  and  to  the  method  for  determining  the 
amount of the aid. 

1  
2  

3  
4  

In the following referred to as “the Fund”. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  2012/2002  of  11  November  2002  establishing  the  European  Union 
Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311/3 of 14.11.2002, in the following referred to as “the Regulation”. 
See overview tables in Annex 1 and 2 
Article 2 (2) last subparagraph 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
BACKGROUND 

1. 

THE COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE SUMMER FLOODS OF 2002 

The  flooding  that  hit  central  Europe  in  the  summer  of  2002  was  of  unprecedented 
proportions. Many people lost their lives and direct damage alone caused in Austria, 
the Czech Republic and Germany as well as few weeks later in the south of France, 
added  up  to  over  €  15  billion.  The  socio-economic  infrastructure  of  entire  regions 
was disrupted and the natural and cultural heritage was damaged. 

Very  rapidly  it  became  apparent  that  a  solidarity-based  response  of  the  European 
Union  going  beyond  the  maximum  use  of  existing  Community  instruments  was 
required.  Within  two  weeks  of  the  “flood  summit”  on  18  August  in  Berlin  that 
brought together the heads of government of the affected countries with the Danish 
Presidency,  the  Commission  President  and  other  Members  of  the  Commission,  the 
Commission  presented  a  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council.5  In  this  Communication  the  Commission  proposed  the  creation  of  a  new, 
specific  instrument  with  mobilisation  procedures  specifically  adapted  to  respond  to 
the consequences of major catastrophes by rapidly mobilising new resources. 

to 

this  proposal, 

the  new  Community 

According 
instrument  should  be 
complementary to the efforts of the countries concerned and should be used to cover 
a  share  of  the  public  expenditure  caused  by  the  disaster.  The  Fund  should  cover 
emergency relief action for any area affected by a major disaster, independently of its 
status under the Structural Funds. The amount of support would be related to the size 
of  the  disaster  and  would  also  take  into  account  the  relative  prosperity  of  the 
region(s) concerned. 

Action  from  the  Fund  was  to  focus  primarily  on  short  term  reconstruction  of 
destroyed  infrastructures,  including  temporary  shelter  and  immediate  securing  of 
damaged  preventive  infrastructures  such  as  dams  and  dikes.  Money  from  the  Fund 
would  be  granted  on  request  by  the  affected  country  as  a  global  relief  grant.  The 
question whether a disaster has a dimension justifying intervention at European level 
and  the  amount  of  the  aid  would  be  decided  by  the  budgetary  authority  upon  a 
proposal by the Commission. The implementation of the grant would be carried out 
under the responsibility of the country and the regions concerned. The Fund would 
be  subject  to  the  normal  Community  rules  on  financial  aid  including  issues  of 
control. 

As discussed at the Berlin meeting, the Fund was to be set up so as to be operational 
as quickly as possible and make available at least € 500 million in a first phase. The 
Fund could be extended to the countries with which accession negotiations are under 
way. 

5  

“The  European  Community  response  to  the  flooding  in  Austria,  Germany  and  several  applicant 
countries, A solidarity-based initiative”, COM (2002) 481 final of 28.8.2002 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At  the  special  meeting  of  Member  States’  representatives  on  29  August  2002 
convened by the Danish Presidency they unanimously supported the idea of creating 
a specific Community instrument to respond to the consequences of major disasters 
by rapidly mobilising new resources. The European Parliament too expressed its full 
support for the creation of a special Community instrument and promised to process 
proposals promptly. 

For  completeness  it  should  be  recalled  that  from  1977  to  1997  the  Community 
budget  did  contain  a  specific  budget  line  destined  to  grant  emergency  aid  to  the 
populations  of  the  Community  that  had  become  the  victims  of  mainly  natural 
disasters6.  On  average  this  budget  line  was  allocated  five  million  Euros  per  year. 
Following repeated criticisms by the Parliament that a permanent allocation of funds 
was  not  justified,  given  the  unpredictability  of  expenses  linked  to  extraordinary 
events,  and  considering  that  it  had  no  legal  base,  the  Commission  discontinued  to 
propose  the  budget  line  from  1998.  Furthermore,  the  limited  financial  resources 
available  resulted  in  that  Community  aid  in  most  cases  was  only  of  a  symbolic 
nature, which was contested by the Parliament for subsidiarity reasons. 

2. 

THE  COUNCIL  REGULATION  ESTABLISHING  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION  SOLIDARITY 
FUND 

On 18 September, less than three weeks after the publication of the Communication, 
the Commission presented its proposal for the creation of the new European Union 
Solidarity Fund7 based on Article 159(3) of the Treaty, which requires adoption by 
unanimity in the Council and consultation of the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, as well as on the 
basis  of  Article  308  of  the  Treaty,  which  requires  unanimity  in  the  Council  and 
consultation of the European Parliament. 

At  the  Council,  the  proposal  was  discussed  by  an  ad-hoc  group  predominantly 
composed  of  the  members  of  the  Council’s  budget  committee.  Discussions  were 
characterised by the desire to show solidarity and to adopt the new instrument in time 
to  be  able  to  mobilise  the  Fund  for  the  four  disasters  at  the  origin  of  its  creation 
before  the  end  of  the  year.  It  was  also  considered,  following  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity,  that  the  new  instrument  should  only  be  a  last  resort  and  safeguards 
should be built in to avoid frequent use. 

In  parallel  the  Commission  negotiated  with  Council  and  Parliament  the  revision  of 
the  Inter-institutional  agreement  in  order  to  make  available  the  necessary  budget 
resources. The acceptance by Parliament of the legal base – the Council Regulation – 
was a de facto precondition for its adoption. 

The Berend Report8 expressing Parliament’s support for the Commission’s proposal 
was  adopted  by  Plenary  on  8  October  2002.  A  favourable  Resolution  of  the 

6  
7  

8  

for  a  Council  Regulation  establishing 

Budget line B4-3400, "Aides d'urgence à des populations de la Communauté victimes de catastrophes" 
Proposal 
the  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund, 
COM(2002) 514 final of 18 September 2002 
Report  on  the  proposal  for  a  Council  regulation  establishing  the  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund, 
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism A5-0341/2002 final 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Committee of the Regions9 and a favourable Opinion of the European Economic and 
Social Committee10 followed. 

As a result of the trilogue (see also chapter 3 below) that took place on 7 November 
2002 a number of modifications to the Commission’s proposal were introduced, the 
most important ones of which were: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  scope  of  the  Fund  was  limited  “mainly”  to  major  natural  disasters  as 
opposed  to  major  natural,  technological  or  environmental  disasters  as 
proposed by the Commission; 

The  threshold  for  major  disasters  was  substantially  raised  from  damage 
estimated at over EUR 1 billion, in 2002 prices, or more than 0.5% of its Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) to damage exceeding EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices or 
0.6% of the country’s Gross National Income (GNI); 

The criteria for exceptionally mobilising the Fund for regional disasters where 
damage  remains  below  the  threshold  (so-called  qualitative  criteria)  were 
considerably stiffened and the total annual allocation for such grants limited to 
EUR  75  million.  The  rather  open  formulation  of  the  proposal  (“Under  very 
exceptional circumstances, can be included any disaster affecting a substantial 
part  of  the  population  of  the  region  or  state  concerned”)  now  reads: 

“…  a  region  could  also  benefit  from  assistance  from  the  Fund,  where  that 
region  has  been  affected  by  an  extraordinary  disaster,  mainly  a  natural  one, 
affecting  the  major  part  of  its  population,  with  serious  and  lasting 
repercussions  on  living  conditions  and  the  economic  stability  of  the  region. 
Total  annual  assistance  under  this  subparagraph  shall  be  limited  to  no  more 
than 7.5 % of the annual amount available to the Fund. Particular focus will 
be on remote or isolated regions, such as the insular and outermost regions as 
defined in Article 299(2) of the Treaty. The Commission shall examine with the 
this 
utmost  rigour  any  requests  which  are  submitted 
subparagraph”; 

it  under 

to 

The application deadline was extended from two months to 10 weeks; 

Eligible  operations  remained  essentially  unchanged  but  a  provision  was 
introduced following which payments from the Fund are in principle limited to 
finance measures alleviating non insurable damages; 

Regional  and  local  authorities  were  excluded  from  being  party  together  with 
the  Commission  and  the  beneficiary  state  to  the  agreement  for  implementing 
the grant; 

– 

The period for implementing the grant was reduced from two to one year; 

9  

10  

Resolution  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  recent  flood  disasters  in  Europe  and  the 
establishment of the European Union Solidarity Fund, CoR 294/2002 fin of 10 October 2002 
Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation 
establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, CES 1185/2002 of 25 October 2002 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
– 

The  provision  was  scrapped  according  to  which  the  Commission  would  be 
empowered  to  exceptionally  propose  a  supplementary  grant  when  damages 
turn out to be substantially higher than initially estimated. A new provision was 
introduced  for  the  opposite  case  of  damage  being  substantially  lower  than 
estimated,  whereby  a  corresponding  amount  of  the  grant  would  need  to  be 
reimbursed by the beneficiary state. 

On  11  November  2002  the  new  Regulation  establishing  the  European  Union 
Solidarity Fund was adopted by the Council and entered into force on 15 November, 
the day following its publication in the Official Journal. 

3. 

BUDGETARY ISSUES: FINANCING SOLIDARITY 

To  enable  the  use  of  the  new  Fund,  which  is  mobilised  outside  the  normal  EU 
budget, two steps were required: to create a procedure and a financial instrument to 
make the money available and to create a budget line to which the money would be 
transferred for implementation. 

Through the creation of a new flexibility instrument for disasters it became possible 
to address unforeseen and exceptional circumstances while maintaining the ceilings 
of the overall Financial Perspectives of Berlin. The new instrument was set up by a 
revision  of  the  Inter-institutional  Agreement,  agreed  at  the  trilogue  held  on 
7 November  2002,  in  which  the  rules  for  its  mobilisation  were  determined.  They 
allow  for  the  mobilisation  of  the  Fund  within  the  annual  ceiling  of  1  billion  euros, 
over  and  above  the  relevant  headings  of  the  financial  perspective  whereby  the 
necessary resources can be called only in case of mobilisation. 

The  new  budget  lines  were  located  in  Heading  3  (budget  line  B2-400)  of  the 
Financial Perspectives (internal actions) and in Heading 7 (budget line B7-090) for 
countries involved in accession negotiations. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
PART 1:  ANNUAL REPORT 2002-2003 

1. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUND IN 2002 

While Commission, Council and the European Parliament were still in the process of 
negotiating  the  proposed  Regulation  the  Commission,  in  close  contact  with  the 
authorities  in  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  France  and  Germany,  was  informally 
preparing  the  mobilisation  of  the  Fund  for  these  countries.  Applications  were 
informally  received  and  analysed,  and,  where  appropriate,  additional  information 
sought. 

Equally, models for standardised grant decisions and implementation agreements and 
a method to determine the amount of the grants were developed (cf. Part 2 chapter 3). 

This way it was possible to propose to the Parliament and Council as the Budgetary 
Authority a draft Amending and Supplementary Budget for mobilising the Fund only 
two days after the adoption of the Regulation11. The applications were summarised as 
follows (cf. overview table in Annex 1): 

“Germany:  The  first  damage  caused  by  the  floods  was  registered  on  10  August 
2002. More than 337 000 people and over 10 000 companies were directly affected, 
over 100 000 people had to be evacuated. The regions hardest hit were Saxony and 
Sachsen-Anhalt.  Estimated  total  damage  amounts  to  €9 151  million,  of  which 
approximately €5 000 million is public. The German authorities claim not to be in a 
position at this stage to give an indication of insurance coverage. Damages to public 
infrastructure  amount  to  over  €3 300  million.  The  cost  of  operations  referred  to  in 
Article 3 of the regulation is estimated at approximately €1 500 million. 

Austria:  The  first  damage  caused  by  the  floods  occurred  on  6  August  2002.  The 
regions most affected were Lower Austria, Upper Austria and Salzburg. More than 
200 000  people  and  over  2 400  companies  were  affected.  Estimated  total  damage 
amounts  to  €2 939  million,  of  which  approximately  €1 448  million  is  public.  The 
Austrian request contains no information on insurance coverage. Damages to public 
infrastructure amount to nearly € 600 million.  

The Czech Republic: The first damage caused by the floods occurred on 5 August 
2002.  Estimated  total  damage  amounts  to  €2 341  million,  of  which  approximately 
€ 770 million is public. € 800-1000 million are estimated to be covered by insurance. 
Other Community sources expected to help cover the damage amount to € 51 million 
(PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD). An EIB loan of up to € 400 million is also expected.  

France:  Torrential  floods  occurred  in  the  Languedoc-Roussillon  region  on  8  and 
9 September 2002. By far most hardly hit was the département du Gard to which the 
French  application  is  limited.  In  this  département  the  first  damage  caused  by  the 
floods  was  registered  on  8  September  2002.  295  municipalities  (out  of  353)  were 

11  

Preliminary  Draft  Supplementary  and  Amending  Budget  N°  5 
SEC(2002) 1221 final of 13.11.2002 

to 

the  Budget  for  2002, 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affected  representing  94%  of  the  population  of  the  Gard.  8000  households  found 
themselves  without  shelter.  Estimated  total  damage  amounts  to  €834.5  million,  of 
which approximately €275 million is public. The French authorities state not to be in 
a  position  at  this  stage  to  give  an  indication  of  insurance  coverage  (some  50  000 
damage  claims  from  individuals  or  companies  have  been  registered).  Damages  to 
public infrastructure amount to over €200 million. The cost of operations referred to 
in Article 3 of the regulation is estimated at approximately €225 million the bulk of 
which relates to infrastructures.” 

While  Austria,  Czech  Republic  and  Germany  all  met  the  “major  disaster”  criterion 
the flooding in France was proposed under the “regional disaster” criterion. 

On  the  basis  of  a  method  developed  by  the  Commission  for  determining  in  an 
equitable  manner  the  amount  of  aid  (explained  in  detail  in  Part  2),  considering  in 
particular the amount  of total damage  and the  relative prosperity of the  beneficiary 
country, the amounts proposed and decided were: 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

France 

Germany 

Total 2002 

€134 million 

€129 million 

€21 million 

€444 million 

€728 million  

The amending budget was adopted without modification by the European Parliament 
on 21 November 2002. 

The four grant decisions were signed by Mr Barnier in the name of the Commission 
on 11 December. 

In parallel the Commission negotiated with the four countries the agreements for the 
implementation  of  the  grants  based  on  model  agreements  developed  by  the 
Commission previously. The purpose of the agreements is to lay down a number of 
provisions in order to safeguard the financial interest of the Community, in particular 
as concerns financial control. They determine the authorities in the beneficiary state 
responsible  for  implementing  the  grant  and  define  the  types  of  operations  in 
conformity with Article 3 of the Regulation for which the beneficiary intends to use 
the  grant.  For  candidate  countries  the  implementation  agreement  includes  the 
provisions of the grant decision which is not directly applicable to them because they 
are not yet Member States. 

On  the  occasion  of  the  European  Council  on  12  December  Mr  Barnier  and  the 
foreign  Ministers  of  Austria,  France  and  Germany  signed 
the  respective 
implementation agreements. The implementation agreement with the Czech Republic 
was signed in Brussels by Mr Barnier on 18 December and on 19 December by the 
Czech  Finance  Minister  in  Prague.  Payments  in  full  were  carried  out  within  the 
following days. 

While  the  Regulation  does  not  foresee  any  specific  monitoring  activities  it  is  the 
general duty of the Commission to regularly evaluate the activities for which it has 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
the  political  and  budgetary  responsibility.  It  was  therefore  considered  important  to 
verify progress of implementation on the ground. To this end visits to all beneficiary 
countries and the main affected regions were carried out in May (Berlin and Dresden, 
Vienna  and  Prague)  and  July  (Nîmes)  2003.  These  visits  were  intended  to  serve  a 
double purpose: for the beneficiaries to raise any issues where they felt that guidance 
from  the  Commission  was  required;  and  for  the  Commission  to  see  whether  the 
implementation system was adequate and whether progress was sufficient to expect 
full  implementation  of  the  grant  within  the  year  available.  The  Commission  also 
asked  for  and  received  progress  reports  from  the  implementing  authorities  which 
they had established for internal purposes. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUND IN 2003 

In  2003  the  Commission  received  in  all  10  new  applications  to  mobilise  the  Fund 
(cf. overview table in Annex 2)12. 

In July 2003 the Commission proposed to mobilise the Fund for the second time13 for 
a  package  of  three  disasters  relating  to  the  eruption  of  Mount  Etna  and  the  Molise 
and Apulia earthquake in Italy, and the sinking of the Prestige tanker and subsequent 
oil pollution in Spain. While this package was still under discussion the Commission 
also proposed to mobilise the Fund for the forest fires that started in August 2003 in 
Portugal14.  The  two  proposals  were  subsequently  merged  into  a  single  Amending 
Budget15.  The  essential  reasons  for  proposing  the  mobilisation  the  Fund  were  the 
following16:  

Prestige  oil  spill:  On  13  January  2003  the  Spanish  authorities  presented  an 
application to mobilise the Fund following the disaster caused by the sinking of the 
Prestige  oil  tanker  starting  on  19  November  2002.  The  disaster  was  of  non-natural 
origin  and  therefore  fell  outside  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  Fund.  The 
Spanish  authorities  have,  however,  demonstrated  that  its  specific  circumstances,  in 
particular the extent and nature of damage caused, the uncertainty of when a solution 
to  the  source  of  the  continuing  pollution  could  be  put  in  place,  and  the  long-term 
negative effects on the stricken region, were such that the mobilisation of the Fund 
appeared  justified.  The  Commission  services  considered  that  direct  damage  should 
be  estimated  at  €  436  million  (adjusted  figure  to  take  account  of  IOPC 
compensations  and  deducting  certain  indirect  damage  from  the  figure  initially 
presented). A particular circumstance of the Prestige case was that verifying whether 
the case fulfilled all the criteria set out in the regulation for “regional disasters” met 
with an objective difficulty. As the pollution directly affected mostly the sea and the 
beaches it appeared difficult to give a reasonable definition of “the affected region” 
as called for by Article 2.2 of the Regulation and to verify whether “the major part of 
the population” living in that area has been affected. On the other hand, serious and 

12  

13  
14  
15  

16  

This report is essentially limited to those cases decided during the reporting period. The other cases will 
be dealt with in greater detail in the report on the year when they were decided. 
Preliminary Draft Amending Budget N° 5 to the Budget for 2003, SEC(2003) 886 final of 30.7.2003 
Preliminary Draft Amending Budget N° 6 to the Budget for 2003, SEC(2003) 1059 final of 25.9.2003 
Final  adoption  of  Amending  Budget  N°  5  of  the  European  Union  for  the  financial  year  2003, 
OJ L 310/1 of 26.11.2003 
For full text see APBR 5/2003 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
lasting  repercussions  on  living  conditions  and  the  economic  stability  have  been 
recorded  for  the  area  near  the  coast,  where  a  large  part  of  the  population  of  the 
4 autonomous regions are concentrated These effects impacted on the economy as a 
whole  but  also  affect  the  living  conditions  of  a  great  number  of  people.  For  these 
reasons  the  Commission  came  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  particular  case  the 
regulation  should  be  applied 
the  extraordinary  character  and 
circumstances of the disaster and its clearly demonstrated negative consequences and 
that therefore the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund appeared justified. 

in  view  of 

Molise  and  Apulia  Earthquake:  The  disaster  started  on  31  October  2002  and 
application  to  mobilise  the  Fund  was  presented  on  13  January  2003  within  the 
retroactive period set out in article 13 of the Regulation. The disaster was of natural 
origin  and  therefore  falls  within  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  Fund.  Direct 
damage  was  estimated  at  €  1  558  million.  The  region  affected  by  the  disaster  was 
clearly  identified  as  65  municipalities  in  the  province  of  Campobasso/Molise  and 
14 municipalities  in  the  province  of  Foggia/Apulia).  The  population  of  the  affected 
region  thus  defined  was  243  000  inhabitants  of  which  the  great  majority  were 
directly affected. While in general it would not appear justified to mobilise the Fund 
for regional disasters affecting geographic areas or numbers of population that do not 
reach  a  significant  level,  this  element  should  be  assessed  case  by  case  considering 
also  the  relative  size  of  the  damage  and  the  severity  of  its  repercussions.  In  the 
present  case  the  high  amount  of  direct  damage,  as  well  as  the  rather  isolated 
character of the area justified to conclude that a significant level has been reached. 
Serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of 
the region were demonstrated: The affected region - while not qualifying as “remote” 
–  was  characterised  by  its  rather  isolated  location.  The  Italian  authorities 
demonstrated that the effects of the earthquake on the affected area, which before the 
quake  was  already  characterised  as  being  especially  weak  and  socially  fragmented, 
were of such severity that the mobilisation of the Fund appeared justified. 

Mount Etna eruption: The application was presented on 13 January 2003 within the 
retroactive  period  set  out  in  article  13  of  the  Regulation  following  the  eruption  of 
Mount Etna starting on 26 October and subsequent earthquakes and downfall of ash 
over a period of several months. The disaster was of natural origin and therefore fell 
within  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  EUSF.  The  Commission  services 
considered  that  total  direct  damage  should  be  estimated  at  €  849  million  (adjusted 
figure after deducting ineligible indirect damage).The region affected was defined as 
the province of Catania with a population of 1,069,000 inhabitants, of which 920,000 
(86%)  were  directly  affected.  Severe  damage  through  earthquake  tremors  and  lava 
was  recorded  in  14  municipalities  affecting  160  000  people,  rendering  over 
3000 habitations and a number of public buildings unsafe and causing damages of an 
estimated € 590 million to private property and public buildings and infrastructure. 
Serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of 
the region were due (i) to the persistence of eruptive and seismic activity over several 
months  and  (ii)  to  the  amount  of  work  involved in repairing damage – expected to 
exceed  two  years  -  and  assessing  the  health  effects  of  exposure  to  the  ashes.  The 
expected economic fall out of € 3 billion was expected to have spill-over effects on 
the  Sicilian  economy  as  a  whole.  Losses  in  agriculture,  the  primary  economic 
resource of Catania province with over 30 000 employed, are estimated at 50% of the 
current  season. The general  slow-down  of the economy is of the order of 35% and 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
tourist  reservations,  vital  to  the  island’s  economy,  are  down  by  up  to  80%.  The 
closing or much reduced activity of Catania airport was considered to be particularly 
harmful. The Catania province is part of Sicily whose living conditions and economy 
are  characterised  by 
limited 
accessibility  and  partly  seclusion  form  the  centres  of  the  Italian  economy,  factors 
which render the Sicilian economy particularly vulnerable. 

insular  and  distant  geographic 

location, 

their 

Forest  fires  in  Portugal:  The  disaster  started  on  20  July  2003.  The  formal 
application  was  received  on  13  August  2003  within  the  regulatory  deadline  and 
completed by further information received on 22 August. The disaster consisted of a 
large number of fires of major proportion on forest and agricultural areas, due to very 
high  temperatures  and  low  atmospheric  humidity.  It  claimed  18  lives.  It  was 
estimated that the fires destroyed 270,000 hectares of forest and 25,000 hectares of 
agricultural land causing loss of profits and salaries for about 45,000 persons. Direct 
damage to Portugal was estimated at € 946.489 million. Since this amount is larger 
than 0.6% of the Portuguese GNI (i.e. larger than €718.120 million) the disaster was 
found to qualify as a “major disaster” within the meaning of the Regulation. The cost 
of  essential  emergency  operations  eligible  under  Article  3(2)  of  the  Regulation  has 
been estimated at € 79.579 million. 

The mobilisation of the following amounts was proposed and decided on the basis of 
the established method: 

Italy – Molise/Apulia 
earthquake 
Italy – Mount Etna eruption 

Spain - Prestige 

Portugal – forest fires 

Total 

Amount of grant 

€ 30.826 million 

€ 16.798 million 

€ 8.626 million 

€ 48.539 million 

€ 104.789 million 

A  further  application  from  Italy  relating  to  severe  flooding  in  several  regions  in 
Northern  Italy  was  rejected  on  the  grounds  that  the  application  deadline  of 
10 weeks  after  the  first  damage  had  been  missed.  Furthermore,  the  information 
provided was not sufficient to verify whether the criteria for extraordinary regional 
disasters were effectively met. 

The amending budget was adopted without modification by the European Parliament 
on 8 October 2003. The grant decisions were signed by Mr Barnier in the name of 
the  Commission  for  Portugal  on  17  November  2003,  for  the  two  Italian  cases  on 
5 December 2003 and for Spain on 12 December 2003. 

The  implementation  agreement  with  Portugal  was  signed  by  Mr  Barnier  and  the 
Portuguese  State  Secretary  for  European  Affairs  in  Brussels  on  17  November.  The 
grant was paid out in full within the following days. For Italy and Spain the signing 
of the agreements (in written procedure) was underway at the moment this report was 
being drafted. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Within the reporting period final decisions on five cases received in 2003 were still 
pending17: 

Two  were  based  on  the  major  disaster  criterion:  the  disaster  in  Malta  following 
storm  and  flooding  in  September  and  the  application  from  Greece  relating  to 
extreme weather conditions during the winter months of 2002/2003.  

In  September  France  presented  an  application,  based  on  the  regional  disaster 
criterion,  relating  to  the  forest  fires  which  struck  different  parts  of  south-eastern 
France and Corsica during July and August 2003. 

The Spanish application relating to the summer forest fires was initially based on the 
extraordinary regional disaster criterion which the Commission regarded as not met. 
At the time when this report is drafted the Commission services are in the process of 
assessing whether the evidence provided permits to apply the neighbouring country 
criterion  for  those  Spanish  fires  that  were  located  in  the  vicinity  to  the  Portuguese 
border. 

In  November  Italy  presented  another  application  under  the  “regional  disaster 
criterion” relating to flooding in Friuli Venzia-Giulia. 

17  

The Commission decided on these cases on 9 March 2004, see overview table in annex 2 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PART 2:  HOW THE REGULATION WAS APPLIED 

Until  the  end  of  November  2003,  i.e.  within  its  first  year  of  application,  the 
Commission received a total of 14 applications to mobilise the Solidarity Fund. Five 
of these applications were based on the main criterion of “major natural disaster” set 
out in Article 2 (1) first subparagraph of the Regulation 18. One application, relating 
to the 2003 forest fires in Spain, was based on the “neighbouring country” criterion 
set  out  in  Article 2 (1) second  subparagraph  of  the  Regulation,  while  the  remaining 
eight applications19, i.e. the majority of cases, were based on the “regional disaster” 
criterion  set  out  in  Article 2 (1) third  subparagraph  of  the  Regulation.  Only  one 
disaster,  the  oil  spill  resulting  from  the  sinking  of  the  Prestige  tanker,  was  of  non-
natural origin. In each case the Commission had to assess whether the conditions in 
the Regulation for mobilising the Fund were met. 

For major disasters the Regulation foresees a single decisive criterion for eligibility: 
the  amount  of  damage  caused  which  allowed  the  Commission  to  complete  its 
examination  in  very  short  time.  All  other  cases,  requesting  the  exceptional 
mobilisation of the Fund required a much more detailed examination and additional 
information  had  to  be  requested  from  the  applicant  State  which  proved  very  time-
consuming.  The  necessity,  in  some  cases,  to  have  applications  and  subsequent 
information translated before they could be processed led to further delays.  

The  analysis  of  the  requests  showed  that  certain  key  notions  introduced  by  the 
Regulation  require  interpretation  in  order  to  be  applicable  in  practice.  The 
Commission has applied the Regulation as described in Chapter 1 below, not least in 
order to ensure an equitable treatment of all cases as called for by Article 4 (2) of the 
Regulation. Equally, to ensure equitable treatment a method had to be developed of 
how  to  determine  the  amount  of  aid  once  it  has  been  concluded  that  a  disaster 
qualifies for Solidarity fund aid. The method developed by the Commission and its 
rationale are described in Chapter 3 below. 

1. 

GENERAL NOTIONS 

The following notions were found to require a more precise definition: 

Nature of the disaster 

The  Fund  should  “mainly  (be)  mobilised  when  a  major  natural  disaster  …occurs” 
(Art. 2.1) 

While  non-natural  disasters  are  not  excluded  the  Regulation  reserves  aid  from  the 
Fund  "mainly"  for  natural  events.  This  means  that  disasters  other  than  natural  can 

18  

19  

In  2002 :  flooding  in  Austria,  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic ;  in  2003 :  forest  fires  in  Portugal, 
flooding and storm in Malta 
In 2002 : flooding in the Département du Gard/France; in 2003 : flooding in Northern Italy, eruption of 
Mount  Etna,  earthquake  in  Molise  and  Apulia,  extreme  weather  conditions  in  Greece,  sinking  of  the 
Prestige/Spain, forest fires in France and flooding in Friuli Venezia-Giulia/Italy. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
qualify  for  Solidarity  Fund  assistance  but  this  requires  a  special  justification.  This 
criterion  was introduced into  the Regulation among other reasons  in  order  to  avoid 
conflicts  with  the  "polluter  pays"  principle  and  not  to  undermine  legal  liability  for 
damages  caused.  If  a  state  applies  for  aid  from  the  Fund  in  spite  of  a  non-natural 
incident it must give reasons why the intervention of the Fund might nevertheless be 
justified  (e.g.  bankruptcy of the liable  party). The  fact that the  liable  party  was  not 
sufficiently insured should not in itself be a sufficient reason. 

Damage threshold 

To  qualify  as  “major”,  disasters  must  meet  the  lower  of  the  double  threshold  of 
damage  exceeding  €  3  billion  or  0.6%  of  GNI.  Smaller  disasters  are  eligible  only 
under the “neighbouring country” or the “regional disaster” criteria (see paragraphs 
2.1 and 2.2 below). 

Cumulating several events 

The  Regulation  relates  to  individual  events  (a  disaster).  Cumulating  a  number  of 
events over a longer period of time and possibly of different nature is not accepted. 
For  this  reason  the  Greek  authorities  were  asked  to  review  their  application  which 
was initially based on the “major disaster” criterion and relates to numerous events 
caused  over  a  period  of  three  months  by  extreme  weather  conditions  (frost,  heavy 
snowfall,  storm  etc),  in  order  to  see  whether  any  of  the  individual  events  could 
qualify as extraordinary regional disaster20. 

A number of events of the same nature happening during a relatively short period not 
exceeding  a  few  weeks  may  be  accepted  as  a  single  major  disaster  provided  the 
events  were  due  to  the  same  (not  just  similar)  underlying  reason  even  if  different 
regions of a country are affected. This reasoning was applied in the case of the forest 
fires in Portugal in the summer of 2003. However, the conditions to be met under the 
“regional  disaster”  criterion  are  different  from  those  applicable  to  major  disasters. 
For this reason cumulating geographically dispersed events as one regional disaster 
is not accepted, even if the different events are of the same nature. 

Calculation of threshold 

“Damage estimated at over EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices or more than 0.6% of its 
GNI” (Art. 2.2 subparagraph 1) 

To reflect 2002 prices the Commission applies a deflator to the 3 billion figure. The 
most  recent  deflator  used  in  the  Community  budget  in  2003,  based  on  the  macro-
economic evolution in the Union, is 1.8%. Thus 3 billion in 2002 prices correspond 
to 3.054 billion in 2003 prices (3 x 1.018). 

For  Gross  National  Income  (GNI)  the  Commission  uses  harmonised  EUROSTAT 
figures  for  the  second  year  prior  to  the  date  of  application  which  can  generally  be 
regarded  as  reliable.  Where  no  reliable  recent  GNI  figure  is  available  GDP  will  be 
used (applied in no case so far). 

20  

At  the  moment  when  this  report  was  drafted  the  formal  Commission  decision  on  this  case  was  still 
pending. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Concept of insurability 

“Payments  from  the  Fund  are  in  principle  limited  to  …  non  insurable  damages” 
(Art. 3.3) 

The argument following which anything is insurable if only the premiums are high 
enough does not reflect reality, is not a feasible approach and in the Commission’s 
view is not what the legislator had in mind. The reason for introducing the concept of 
non-insurability into the Regulation was rather not to undermine the “polluter-pays” 
principle and the individual’s obligation to take sufficient precautionary measures. In 
this  way  it  was  intended  to  avoid  that  the  Solidarity  Fund  should  step  in  to  cover 
damage  which  should  reasonably  have  been  insured  or  for  which  there  is  a  clear 
liability. For a number of reasons, however, this idea still proved difficult to apply in 
practice. 

For one,  no uniform  insurance  market exists across countries eligible for the  Fund. 
For  certain  risks  insurance  coverage  may  be  on  offer  or  even  obligatory  in  some 
countries  whereas  in  others  nothing  comparable  exists21.  In  the  private  sector  it  is 
already  nearly  impossible  to  know  within  10  weeks  what  is  in  effect  insured;  even 
more  difficult  is  it  to  know  what  could  have  been  insured,  i.e.  was  insurable. 
However,  as  the  Fund  intervenes  for  public  costs  only  this  provision  is  of  minor 
relevance. Public authorities on the other hand do not, as a general rule, ensure their 
assets,  even  if  in  some  cases  insurance  may  have  been  available.  The  Commission 
considers that the intention of the legislator was not to upset Member States’ general 
practice. 

For  these  reasons  the  Commission,  when  examining  Fund  applications,  contented 
itself with information on whether any of the eligible emergency operations proposed 
were effectively insured or otherwise covered, e.g. by international instruments like 
the  International  Oil  Pollution  Compensation  Funds  IOPC  (as  in  the  case  of  the 
Prestige).  Where  this  was  the  case  the  Commission  deducted  the  relevant  amount 
from  the  total  cost  of  eligible  emergency  operations  (in  order  to  avoid  double 
financing) and from the amount of total direct damage thus leading to a reduction of 
the  grant  (cf.  Chapter  on  the  calculation  method  below;  relevant  in  the  case  the 
Prestige and the fires in Portugal). Ex-post  adjustments  may  need  to  be  made  once 
the  beneficiaries  have  submitted  their  final  reports  which  must  contain  all  relevant 
information. 

Deadline for applications 

“…no later than ten weeks after the first damage” (Art. 4.1) 

Applications  must  be  made  within  10  weeks  of  the  starting  date  of  a  disaster.  This 
deadline is calculated from the date of the first damage which needs to be confirmed 
by the applicant country and is checked by the Commission against other information 
available.  Within  the  deadline  applications  must  be  received  at  the  Commission, 
documented by the registration stamp for incoming mail. This practice is in line with 
the rules for other Community financial instruments such as the Structural Funds and 

21   

In this context the Commission undertook to carry out a study on the insurance systems applied in the 
Member States 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reflects general practice in the Member States. To reflect the nature of the Fund as an 
emergency  instrument  the  Commission,  however,  does  accept  submission  by 
electronic mail. In this case the date of receipt is that automatically generated by the 
email server. 

If it is found that damage attributable to the disaster was caused prior to the 10 week 
deadline the applications is considered inadmissible. This was applied in the case of 
the application introduced by Italy relating to flooding in Northern Italy. 

Applications should contain all the information required by the Regulation. If this is 
not possible supplementary information may be submitted at a later date, as early as 
possible.  To  be  admissible  applications  must,  however,  provide  a  minimum  of 
information:  identification  of  the  disaster,  location,  starting  date,  otherwise  the 
application  is  rejected.  Where  this  was  not  the  case  the  application  was  deemed  to 
have been received only at the moment this basic information was submitted. 

While all “major disaster” applications to date could be processed very speedily this 
was not always the case with applications based on the “regional disaster” criterion. 
In all such cases the Commission had to request supplementary information from the 
applicant  State  at  least  once  in  order  to  be  able  to  verify  the  much  more  detailed 
requirements imposed by the Regulation. In some cases replies were incomplete or 
received  only  after  months,  which  –  together  with  the  need  (in  some  cases)  for 
translation - lead to delays of up to one year which is contrary to the nature of the 
Fund as an emergency instrument. 

In  order  to  remedy  this  unsatisfactory  situation  the  Commission  will,  in  the  future, 
set  a  time  limit  for  supplementary  information  and  conclude  its  assessment  of  the 
application  no  later  than  four  months  after  its  introduction  on  the  basis  the 
information available to it at that time (cf. conclusions of this report). 

Definition of damage 

“Total damage” (Art 4.1(a)) 

When  assessing  the  size  of  the  disaster  only  direct  damage  is  considered,  leaving 
aside indirect damage such as losses in income and production due to the interruption 
of  economic  activities  (salaries,  company  revenue,  cancellations  in  the  tourism 
sector), reduced contributions to social security systems, loss of future crops (while 
destroyed  present  crops  are  accepted).  Hypothetical  damage  such  as  a  fictive  price 
attached  to  lost  recreational  value  of  burnt  forests  (“5  Euros  per  lost  visit”)  is  not 
taken into consideration either. 

It is left to the applicant country to determine the amount of the damage according to 
its national practice. For fixed assets this usually means “cost of reconstruction” (for 
buildings,  infrastructures  in  particular)  whereas  for  other  goods  such  as  destroyed 
mobile assets the current value of the asset should be used. Ecological damage may 
be taken into consideration to the degree that there is a real cost attached to it, e.g. for 
cleaning-up  operations.  The  intervention  cost  of  emergency  services  is  considered 
part of total damage. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Direct  damage  as  basis  for  verifying  whether  the  threshold  to  mobilise  the  Fund  is 
reached  was  chosen  for  the  following  reasons:  There  is  no  generally  accepted 
concept of indirect damage. Reliable estimates of direct damage within the 10 week 
application deadline have proven to be sufficiently difficult to produce; using indirect 
damage  would  lead  to  enormous  distortions,  further  delays  and  possibly  a  greater 
need for ex-post corrections and recoveries. 

Actual  or  expected  payments  from  insurance  or  international  sources  such  as  the 
IOPC  (not  other  EU  grants  though)  towards  emergency  operations  eligible  under 
Article 3 of the Regulation will however be deducted from total damage (applied in 
the  Prestige  case).  Donations,  however,  should  remain  without  effect  on  the  total 
damage figure, as otherwise the readiness to make donations might be undermined. 
Equally, EIB loans have no effect on total damage. 

The  Commission  assesses  the  plausibility  of  figures  on  damage  and  will  check 
damage  figures  against  information  from  other  sources  whenever  possible.  Where 
appropriate  the  Commission  adjusted  the  figures  provided  by  the  applicant  State 
before using them as a basis for determining the amount of the aid. Other information 
is however not available in all cases and the Commission has no specific expertise in 
this  field.  It  may  be  appropriate  in  the  future  to  recur  to  independent  external 
expertise but for this specific credits will have to be made available. 

Eligible cost 

“Estimated cost of operations” (Art 4.1(b)) 

The  purpose  of  grants  from  the  Fund  is  to  cover  a  share  of  the  beneficiary  States’ 
public expenditure. Grants may only be used to finance the cost of certain essential 
emergency operations as defined in Article 3(2) and must therefore never exceed the 
amount  of  that  cost.  The  selection  of  such  operations  (as  specified  in  the 
implementation agreement) is left to the beneficiary country. As public expenditure 
will in all cases have to finance more than just the cost of emergency operations the 
requirement  of  the  Regulation  to  limit  the  grant  to  cover  “a  share”  of  public 
expenditure seems to be fulfilled. In any event, this provision does not impose a co-
financing  obligation  for  individual  operations.  Equity  considerations  suggest  to 
discuss a limitation of the grant to a certain proportion of the total costs of eligible 
operations,  as  estimated  at  the  moment  of  the  proposal  to  mobilise  the  Fund.  This 
issue will be further explored at the forthcoming conference on the Solidarity Fund to 
be organised in autumn 2004. In the light of these discussions the Commission would 
come up with appropriate proposals. 

The  estimated  amount  of  emergency  operations  may  not  exceed  what  is  regarded 
immediately necessary (restoration to working order) and will not, as a general rule, 
cover the cost of full reconstruction. It is however recognised that there may be cases 
where  the  only  feasible  solution  is  full  reconstruction.  If  reconstruction  is  used  to 
introduce improvements the additional cost may in no case be claimed to the Fund. 
Where equipment needs to be replaced (e.g. vehicles of the rescue services destroyed 
during the operation) only the current value of this equipment may be claimed. 

The  share  of  essential  emergency  operations  in  relation  to  total  damage  has  been 
found  to  vary  considerably  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  disaster  and  the 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
characteristics  of  the  affected  territory (cf.  annexes  1  and  2).  The  one  extreme  was 
the  case  of  the  Prestige  oil  spill  where  practically  no  private  or  public  assets  were 
damaged and costs related almost exclusively to (eligible) cleaning up operations. In 
this  case  eligible  operations  represented  95%  of  total  damage.  By  contrast,  in  the 
case of the Portuguese forest fires, the bulk of damage was caused to private property 
forests, the share of eligible operations thus representing only 8% of total damage. 

Coordination with other financial instruments 

“Any other sources of Community funding” (Art 4.1(c)) 

Information  on  disaster  related  funding  from  other  Community  sources  –  in 
particular of operations eligible for Fund aid - is sought for two reasons: to ensure a 
coordinated approach of these instruments, thus maximising their efficiency, and to 
avoid double financing. The Commission has repeatedly encouraged applicant States 
to  make  use  of  the  Structural  Funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  or  the  pre-accession 
instruments where the disaster-stricken region is eligible for assistance under one of 
these instruments. Within the regulatory limits of these instruments the Commission 
was and is willing to be as flexible as possible to redirect funding to help mitigate the 
consequences  of  a  disaster  and  –  more  importantly  –  to  put  greater  emphasis  on 
disaster prevention policies. The EAGGF-Guarantee may also contribute to disaster 
relief  via  derogations  concerning  1st  pillar  measures  (e.g.  through  anticipated 
payments,  agricultural  use  of  land  set  aside)  and  the  specific  restoration  measures 
under Rural Development. 

“Other  sources  of  national  or  international  funding  including  public  and  private 
insurance coverage” (Art 4.1(d)) 

Applicant  countries  are  asked  to  provide  an  estimate  of  other  public  and  private 
sources,  including  insurance  coverage,  which  might  help  to  repair  the  damage.  It 
proved extremely difficult to receive any reliable data within 10 weeks of a disaster 
on  insurance  coverage  as  private  claims  usually  take  much  longer  to  be  introduced 
and  even  longer  to  be  settled.  What  applicants  usually  can  provide  however  is 
whether any of the public damage was insured – which normally is not the case. 

The government of Saxony together with the Red Cross has developed an electronic 
tool  called  PHOENIX,  essentially  an  interactive  database,  which  was  successfully 
used  to  collect  information  on  the  different  sources  financing  at  project  level 
provided from the various public and private bodies that contributed towards making 
good the damage of the 2002 flooding. This database has been made available to the 
Commission and may now be used by other beneficiary countries. 

Starting date of eligibility (Art. 4.5) 

The  starting  date  of  eligibility  is  the  date  at  which  the  first  damage  caused  by  the 
disaster  occurred  (cf.  Art.  4(1)  of  the  Regulation).  This  means  that  expenditure  for 
eligible emergency operations as defined in Article 3 of the Regulation and specified 
in Article 5 of the agreement made between that date and the signature of the grant 
decision may be claimed for assistance from the Fund. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Implementation period 

“A  grant  shall  be  used  within  one  year”  of  disbursement  by  the  Commission 
(Art. 8.1) 

The Regulation provides for one year to implement the grant to be counted from its 
disbursement by the Commission. In order to avoid any ambiguities as to the exact 
dates it has been agreed up to the present with beneficiaries that this deadline is to be 
understood as running from the date of the effective arrival of the grant at the first 
account in the beneficiary country. Proof of the precise date needs to be provided by 
the beneficiary State at the latest with the final report. 

Using the grant means effectively spending (paying out) the money for the purposes 
set out in the implementation agreement and providing proof of that expenditure. 

The Commission considers that the Regulation does not permit granting an extension 
to the implementation period of one year. This position has been communicated at an 
early stage to all beneficiaries to date. 

2. 

EXCEPTIONAL INTERVENTION OF THE FUND 

The Regulation provides for two exceptions where the Fund may be mobilised even 
if the criterion of damage exceeding € 3 billion or 0.6 % if GNI is not met. 

2.1. 

The neighbouring country criterion 

“Neighbouring country affected by the same disaster” (Art. 2.2 subparagraph 2) 

This criterion is applicable only to countries neighbouring another country in which a 
major disaster has taken place and was accepted by the Commission as eligible for 
support from the Fund. To be eligible the disaster in the neighbouring country (which 
may be one event or a set of events, cf. Chapter 1) striking the border area of the two 
countries  in  questions  must  be  the  same.  Similar  circumstances  alone  are  not 
sufficient. If a disaster is found to meet this criterion the mobilisation of the Fund is 
subject to no further conditions and independent of its size. 

Grants under this criterion are counted within the total annual allocation available to 
the  Fund  and  not  within  the  allocation  of  7.5%  of  the  total  annual  allocation 
earmarked  for  extraordinary  regional  disasters.  The  aid  is  determined  applying  the 
same method as described in chapter 3 below (i.e. on the basis of 2.5% of total direct 
damage). 

2.2. 

Regional disasters 

Disasters  meeting  neither  the  “major  disaster”  nor  the  “neighbouring  country" 
criteria may exceptionally qualify for assistance from the Fund if they meet a number 
of  specific  criteria  set  out  in  Art.  2(2)  subparagraph  3.  These  criteria  have  been 
referred to as the “qualitative” criteria. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Definition of the affected region 

The Regulation does not define the notion of an affected region. As disasters do not 
respect administrative boundaries, it appears reasonable to allow the applicant State, 
subject to verification by the Commission, to define the region following a criterion 
of its choice and reflecting the nature of the damage. This must be clearly explained 
in the request. 

The Regulation does not set out any minimum requirements in terms of size of the 
affected territory or population. The Commission considers, however, that given the 
underlying  rationale  of  the  Fund  and  in  order  for  the  specific  criteria  for  regional 
disasters  to  be  of  any  meaning,  in  particular  as  concerns  “economic  stability”,  the 
affected area or population must be significant in the national context. While purely 
local events are therefore not eligible to the Fund the guiding principle has been that 
the more devastating a disaster is, the smaller a region may be defined. It should be 
recognised that this cannot be quantified in advance and has to be decided on a case 
by  case  basis.  The  concept  was  applied  in  the  case  of  the  Molise  earthquake  that 
affected a  relatively  small  part of Italy’s population of under a quarter of a million 
inhabitants but was extremely devastating. 

Equally, the Commission considers that for disasters not meeting the “major disaster 
criterion”,  the  Regulation  does  not  allow  damage  from  several  areas  to  be 
aggregated,  even  where  that  damage  has  a  common  underlying  cause.  The 
Regulation allows the Fund to intervene whenever the major part of the population of 
a  specific  region  is  affected  by  a  disaster  with  serious  and  lasting  repercussions  on 
living  conditions.  The  use  of  the  term  "a  region"  in  the  Regulation  connotes  a 
contiguous  or  coherent  area  and  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an  aggregation  of  areas 
dispersed  within  a  larger  territory.  This  view  is  supported  by  the  fact  that 
Article 2(2), final paragraph, is an exception and should therefore be read strictly. A 
broad interpretation allowing several distinct and unconnected areas to be considered 
collectively as a region would also raise difficulties in applying the other criteria of 
Article  2(2), in particular as  regards proving lasting repercussions on the economic 
stability of the affected region. 

Exceptional mobilisation of the Fund 

The  Fund  may  exceptionally  be  mobilised  for  regional  disasters  under  three 
conditions: 

•  Disasters must mainly be natural22 

•  The major part of the region’s population must be affected, and 

•  Serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability 

must be demonstrated. 

22  

On the significance of “mainly” see page 14 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In such cases a disaster is considered to be extraordinary, because it exceeds by its 
nature or its size in terms of damage or by its impact on the region concerned what 
could reasonably be expected to happen. 

“Disaster … affecting the major part of its population” 

In order to assess whether the major part of the population of the region concerned 
by the disaster is affected two elements are required. 

Firstly,  the  region  must  be  clearly  identified  and  the  normal  resident  population  of 
that  region  must  be  indicated.  Secondly,  the  part  of  the  population  affected  by  the 
disaster must be indicated. The Commission considers that the major part means no 
less  than  50%.  To  qualify  there  must  be  some  form  of  direct  effect  on  those 
individuals, such as loss of or damage to health or property or economic damage (e.g. 
incapacity  to  exercise  one’s  occupation)  or  other  form  of  serious  personal 
disadvantage,  such  as  provisional  housing,  impossibility  to  send  children  to  school 
etc. It is not sufficient to live in the affected area without suffering serious personal 
disadvantage. 

States may base their application on the area most severely hit even if it is smaller 
than the actual area really affected in order to fulfil the population criterion. This can 
be  acceptable  but  in  such  case  the  damage  declared  must  only  relate  to  the  region 
defined. In exceptional cases, it could be considered acceptable if the grant is used in 
the wider affected area. 

“Serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability” 

This  means  direct  negative  impact  on  the  population,  such  as  lasting  provisional 
housing,  lasting  unavailability  of  normal  infrastructures  (water,  energy,  major 
transport infrastructures, telecom etc), lasting health hazard etc. Lasting should mean 
that  the  expected  duration  of  that  direct  negative  impact  is  not  much  less  than  one 
year. 

The  applicant  State  must  also  demonstrate  significant  negative  impact  on 
employment  and/or  economic  activity  that  is  expected  to  be  felt  for  more  than  one 
year (significant rise in unemployment, significant drop in industrial or agricultural 
production, significant drop in the services sector, e.g. in tourism etc). 

Particular focus on remote and isolated regions 

While  the  Commission  considers  that  the  above  three  criteria  must  be  met 
cumulatively,  the  call  for  particular  focus  on  remote  or  isolated  regions  is  not  a 
separate  criterion  for  a  disaster  to  qualify  for  aid.  The  Commission  considers  the 
remote  or  isolated  character  of  a  region  to  be  present  when  it  is  either  located  at  a 
great  distance  from  the  centre  of  its  national  economy  (such  as  the  outermost 
regions)  or  if  the  region  is  isolated  within  the  national  economy  because  of  its 
geographic  location  (certain  mountain  areas,  islands  etc)  with  underdeveloped 
infrastructure links, or because of other particular vulnerability. In the absence of a 
remote or isolated character of the region the applicant State must give reasons why 
the Fund should nevertheless be mobilised. This could, for example, be the particular 
seriousness of the three criteria mentioned before. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
3. 

DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF AID 

Beyond the general terms of Article 4 (2), the Regulation itself contains no specific 
rules on how to determine the amount of aid to be granted. It does, however, contain 
a  number  of  indications,  such  as  the  obligation  to  retain  a  quarter  of  the  Fund’s 
allocation until 1 October of each year and, in particular, the necessity to ensure an 
equitable treatment of all applications. In establishing a method for determining the 
amount of Fund aid the Commission was led therefore by the following principles: 

– 

– 

Equity  and  transparency:  The  method  should  allow  multiple  grants  to  a 
number of disasters of different size and in countries with different economic 
strength  in  the  course  of  one  year,  while  respecting  the  maximum  annual 
allocation  for  the  Fund  as  a  whole  (€  1  billion),  the  7.5%  maximum  share  of 
total annual allocation for extraordinary regional disasters, and the requirement 
to retain 25% of the Fund’s total allocation until 1 October of each year. The 
amount of aid should not - under normal circumstances and in all likelihood - 
depend  on  the  point  in  time  at  which  in  the  course  of  a  budgetary  year  an 
application  is  made  nor  on  what  total  amount  of  aid  had  already  been  made 
earlier during the same year; 

Solidarity  and  subsidiarity:  the  intensity  of  aid  from  the  Fund  should  be 
higher for bigger disasters than for smaller ones. The aid rate should therefore 
be  progressive  with  increasing  damage.  The  amount  of  the  aid  should  reflect 
the degree to which a disaster stricken country is capable to face the situation 
with  its  own  means.  For  the  same  amount  of  damage  poorer  countries 
(expressed by GNI) should therefore receive more aid than richer countries. 

These principles were tested against a number of alternative solutions and simulation 
calculations and led the Commission to adopt the following system: 

A progressive system in two brackets is introduced whereby a country affected by 
a  disaster  receives  a  lower  rate  of  aid  of  2.5%  for  the  part  of  the  damage  below  a 
threshold and a higher share of aid of 6% for the part of the damage exceeding the 
threshold. The two amounts are added up. 

The  threshold  is  the  level  of  damage  defined  by  the  Regulation  to  trigger  the 
intervention of the Fund, i.e. 0.6% of GNI or € 3 billion in 2002 prices. This element 
ensures that the relative capacity of a State to deal itself with a disaster is taken into 
account.  It  also  ensures  that  for  the  same  amount  of  damage  relatively  poorer 
countries would receive more aid in absolute terms than richer ones. 

For  extraordinary  regional  disasters  the  same  method  has  been  applied,  meaning 
consequently  that  countries  affected  by  those  disasters,  which  by  definition  remain 
below the threshold, receive 2.5 % of total direct damage in aid. 

As the first year of applying the Regulation has shown, applications not meeting the 
“major  disaster”  criterion  are  rather  the  rule  than  the  exception  (9  out  of  14 
applications).  Although,  for  varying  reasons,  the  Commission  did  not  respond 
favourably  to  certain  of  these  cases  the  number  of  the  smaller  disasters  remains 
unexpectedly high. One  consequence has  been that a situation arose in 2003 where 
the  budgetary  resources  available  for  extraordinary  regional  disasters  proved 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
insufficient if the aid rate of 2.5% of total direct damage was to be applied. The rate 
had thus to be reduced on a pro rata basis to just under 2%. 

To avoid similar situations in future which raise problems in respect of ensuring an 
equitable  treatment  of  all  cases  two  solutions  are  possible:  1)  modifying  the 
Regulation  to  raise  the  maximum  annual  amount  that  may  be  spent  for  regional 
disasters or 2) modifying the Commission’s calculation method by setting the lower 
of  the  two  rates,  applicable  to  the  share  of  damage  below  the  threshold  for  major 
disasters, at a rate below 2.5%. 

Total  direct  damage  was  chosen  as  the  basis  for  determining  the  amount  of  aid 
because it reflects best the overall impact on living conditions and the economy of a 
country. By contrast, the cost of eligible emergency operations and its relative size in 
relation  to  total  damage  may  vary  greatly  (cf.  section  on  total  damage  above).  The 
burden  on  public  budgets  caused  by  a  disaster  exceeds  by  far  the  amount  of  costs 
eligible for assistance from the Fund and also includes indirect consequences such as 
reduced tax revenue, increased social security payments etc. Obviously, aid may not 
exceed the amount of eligible cost. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
CONCLUSIONS 

Overall assessment of the implementation of the Fund 

1. 

2. 

Before drawing conclusions it is important to recall the initial purpose and concept 
that lead to the creation of the Fund. Under the impression of the unprecedented scale 
of  the  flooding  disasters  of  2002  it  was  felt  that  the  Union  should  dispose  of  an 
instrument  that  would  allow  to  show  practical  solidarity  with  Member  States  and 
candidate countries by granting exceptional financial aid if these were the victims of 
disasters  of  such  unusual  proportions  (in  the  Regulation  referred  to  as  “major 
disasters”)  that  their  own  capacity  to  face  up  to  them  reached  to  their  limits.  It  is 
under  these  circumstances  –  reflecting  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  -  that  Member 
States  were  prepared  to  raise  financial  resources  over  and  above  the  normal 
Community budget. 

Apart from the 3 major disasters at the origin of the Fund’s coming into existence – 
the  flooding  in  Austria,  Germany  and  the  Czech  Republic  –  there  has  so  far  been 
only one more major disaster, namely the forest fires in Portugal, for which the Fund 
was  mobilised23.  All  these  cases  could  be  completed  in  the  shortest  of  time  thus 
proving  the  Union’s  capacity  to  live  up  to  the  expectations  linked  with  the  new 
instrument. The Commission was in fact able to assess the dossiers and propose the 
mobilisation  of  the  Fund  to  the  budgetary  authority  within  hardly  more  than  one 
month of the application. 

It  should  also  be  remembered  that  –  although  the  Fund  was  created  to  grant 
emergency aid – it essentially is constructed as a refunding instrument. The objective 
is  and  should  remain  to  make  money  available  rapidly.  Certain  administrative 
improvements  and  in  particular  if  further  scope  for  streamlining  the  budgetary 
procedure between Parliament and the Council were to be found, actual payments of 
the aid could be made even quicker. 

Further  reflection  is  required  on  the  feasibility  of  providing  immediate  funding 
(e.g. fonds  de  trésorerie)  in  certain  cases  so  as  to  allow  Member  States  to  pay  for 
additional  measures  to  deal  with  emergencies  which  overwhelm  their  immediate 
financial capacities. Funding would have to be repaid. Granting assistance would be 
independent from any later decision on eligibility for the Solidarity Fund24. 

In  all  and  considering  the  rationale  behind  creating  the  Fund,  the  assessment  of  its 
operations should be predominantly positive: the Fund is fulfilling its purpose. 

23  

24  

The Greek application was also based on  a “major disaster” but rejected by the Commission as it was 
found not to meet the criteria. (Cf. also footnote above) 
See  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  “Reinforcing  the  Civil  Protection  Capacity  of  the 
European Union”. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

For  those  cases  that  did  not  fall  within  the  main  scope  of  the  Fund  the  judgement 
must be more nuanced. 

Firstly,  applications  to  mobilise  the  Fund  for  disaster  below  the  “major  disaster” 
threshold,  which  were  intended  to  be  the  absolute  exception,  proved  to  be  the 
majority of cases. 

So far only one application related to the “neighbouring country” criterion. Given the 
normal purpose of the Fund and the exceptional character of this criterion, the Fund 
should only be mobilised for such cases where it is clearly established that it is one 
and the same disaster that struck the border area of two countries. 

Assessing  the  relatively  great  number  of  applications  und  the  “regional  disaster” 
criterion met with certain difficulties. Initial applications hardly contained sufficient 
information  to  verify  the  much  more  numerous  and  specific  requirements  of  this 
criterion. As a result, supplementary information had to be sought which in return led 
to  prolonging  the  delays  for  scrutiny.  In  some  cases  the  need  for  translation  led  to 
further delays. In some other cases the Regulation proved to lack a certain degree of 
precision and to require interpretation, e.g. as concerns the definition of the affected 
region and number share of affected population. In spite of certain weaknesses – for 
some of which the Commission proposes administrative solutions (see fifth point) – 
it can be concluded that also for the exceptional cases the Fund has overall worked 
rather satisfactorily. 

4. 

Just  over  one  year  of  experience  is,  of  course,  too  short  a  period  to  make  a  final 
judgement. It is in particular too early to propose any substantial modifications to the 
Regulation. As experience teaches already, no disaster is like another and each case 
puts the Regulation to the test again. It appears therefore more appropriate to gather 
further experience and reflect on possible adjustments to the Regulation by 2006 as 
already foreseen by its Article 14. 

Operational guidelines for future action 

If  it  appears  too  early  to  modify  the  basic  legal  act,  in  the  short  term  the  Commission 
considers that a number of practical measures in applying the Regulation should be taken now 
and would lead to improvements, in particular to streamline and speed up the processing of 
applications: 

1. 

As described before the time for receiving the supplementary information necessary 
for  verifying  the  different  requirements  of  the  Regulation  –  in  particular  for 
applications  under  the  “regional  disaster”  criterion  -  has  lead  to  a  prolonged 
examination period. Given the experience gathered with the application of the Fund 
over the past year the Commission will in future strive to finalise its assessment on 
the  basis  of  the  information  available  at  the  latest  4  months  after  receipt  of  the 
application. A standardised application form which will be available in all languages 
(cf.  model  in  annex)  should  help  to  streamline  the  examination  process.  Subject  to 
budgetary  and  resource  availability  the  Commission  will  endeavour  to  provide 
priority resources regarding translation facilities. 

2. 

In  assessing  applications  the  Commission  has  repeatedly  felt  the  need  for  external 
technical  expertise,  in  particular  for  verifying  the  reliability  of  estimates  of  total 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

damage  and  of  the  cost  of  eligible  emergency  operations.  The  Commission  may 
propose a budget to make such technical assistance available from 2005 onward. 

The  necessity  sometimes  to  translate  application  dossiers  may  be  a  cause  of  delay 
because of the shortage of resources. As a means of shortening the reaction time to 
the catastrophe, the Commission therefore suggests that application dossiers could as 
far as possible be standardised along the lines of the standardised "application form" 
(see  paragraph  a)  above  and  cf.  model  in  annex).  and  wherever  possible  could  be 
submitted in one of the more frequent working languages, such as English, French or 
German  -  it  being  understood  that  neither  the  use  of  the  standardised  "application 
form"  nor  the  use  of  any  specific  language  among  EU  official  languages  are 
mandatory to present applications. 

For  “regional  disasters”  the  maximum  annual  allocation  is  limited  to  75  million 
Euros. In accordance with Article 4(2) of the Regulation at least one quarter of this 
amount must remain available on 1 October of each year, limiting the maximum total 
amount  that  may  be  granted  before  that  date  to  56.25  million  Euros.  The  current 
method of calculating the amount of aid risks exceeding these limits, in particular if 
several  regional  disasters happen before  the first  of October of a given year As  set 
out above, the Commission will not at this stage propose to modify the Regulation. If 
similar  situations  should  recur  the  Commission  may  modify  its  calculation  method 
by  setting  the  lower  of  the  two  rates,  applicable  to  the  share  of  damage  below  the 
threshold  for  major  disasters,  at  an  appropriate  lower  level  (say  2%)  for  all  future 
cases. 

Equity  considerations  suggest  to  discuss  a  limitation  of  the  grant  to  a  certain 
proportion of the total costs of eligible operations, as estimated at the moment of the 
proposal to mobilise the fund. This issue will be further explored at the forthcoming 
conference  on  the  Solidarity  Fund  to  be  organised  in  autumn  2004.  In  the  light  of 
these discussions the Commission would come up with appropriate proposals. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

Annex 1: European Union Solidarity Fund applications in 2002 

Nature of disaster 

First damage date 

Total direct damage 

Major or regional 
disaster? 

Cost of eligible emergency 
operations 

Eligible cost / total damage 

Aid / eligible cost 

Aid rate 
(% of total damage) 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

flooding 

6/8/2002 

2 900 m€ 

flooding 

5/8/2002 

2 300 m€ 

Le Gard/ 
France 

flooding 

8/9/2002 

835 m€ 

Germany 

flooding 

10/8/2002 

9 1000 € 

Major disaster 

Major disaster 

Regional disaster 

Major disaster 

1200 m€ 

1186 m€ 

225 m€ 

1699 m€ 

41% 

11.2% 

4.6% 

52% 

10.9% 

5.5% 

27% 

9.3% 

2.5% 

19% 

26.1% 

4.8% 

Decided and paid out 

Decided and paid out 

Decided and paid out 

Decided and paid out 

Status 

Implementation com-
pleted, waiting for 
final report 

Implementation com-
pleted, waiting for 
final report 

Implementation com-
pleted, waiting for 
final report 

Implementation com-
pleted, waiting for 
final report 

Amount of aid granted 

134 m€ 

129 m€ 

21 m€ 

444 m€ 

* 

Registration of initial application at Commission 

EN 

28 
EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2: European Union Solidarity Fund applications in 2003 

Prestige/ 
Spain 

Molise/ 
Italy 

Etna/ 
Italy 

North Italy  

Greece 

Portugal 

France 

Spain 

Malta 

Friuli Venezia-
Giulia/ Italy 

Nature of disaster 

Oil spill 

Earthquake 

Volcanic eruption 
& quakes 

Flooding 

Adverse winter 
weather  

Forest fires 

Forest fires 

Forest fires 

flooding 

flooding 

First damage date 

19/11/02 

31/10/02 

26/10/02 

24/11/02 

1/12/2002 

20/7/03 

2/7/03 

1/8/03 

15/9/03 

29/8/03 

Application date* 

13/1/03 

13/1/03 

13/1/03 

31/1/03 

28/2/03 

13/8/03 

10/9/03 

1/10/03 

10/11/03 

6/11/03 

Total direct damage 

436 m€ 
(adjusted) 

1 558 m€ 

Major or regional 
disaster? 

Regional 
disaster 

Regional 
disaster 

849 m€ 
(adjusted) 

Regional 
disaster 

1 900 m€ 

Not clear 

1 228 m€ 

531 m€ 

53.2 m€ 
(adjusted) 

30 m€ 

525 m€ 

Regional 
disaster 

Regional disas-
ter 

Major disas-
ter 

Regional disas-
ter 

Neighbouring 
country 

Major 
disaster 

Regional disaster 

416 m€ 

248 m€ 

204 m€ 

Not clear 

104 m€ 

29.2 m€ 

11 m€ 

136 m€ 

Cost of eligible emer-
gency operations 

Eligible cost / total 
damage 

95% 

16% 

24% 

8.2% 

Aid / eligible cost 

2.1% 

12.4% 

Aid rate 
 (% of total damage) 

1.97% 

1.97% 

1.97% 

- 

8% 

- 

55 % 

37% 

46.7% 

3.95% 

4.6 % 

8.7 % 

2.5 % 

3.2 % 

Status 

Decided 

Decided 

Decided 

Rejected 

Rejection pro-
posed** 

Decided and 
paid out 

Rejection pro-
posed** 

Partial accep-
tance pro-
posed** 

Acceptance 
proposed** 

Rejection pro-
posed** 

Amount of aid 
granted 

8.626 m€ 

30.826 m€ 

16.798 m€ 

- 

- 

48.539 m€ 

- 

1.331 m€ 

0.961 m€ 

- 

* 
** 

Registration of initial application at Commission 
Commission decision on 9/03/2004 

EN 

29 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: 

Summary Application Form to mobilise the European Union 
Solidarity Fund (EUSF) 

The information to be provided in this form should be considered as a summary of your application. 
It cannot replace the proper application. All supporting documentation, reports, photographs and sta-
tistics etc. referred to in this summary application form should be numbered and or indexed, and ac-
company  your  application.  All  documents  can  be  sent  to  the  Commission  in  one  of  the  official  lan-
guages  of  the  European  Union.  However,  in  order  to  expedite  the  processing  of  the  application  it 
would be helpful if the summary application could (also) be supplied in English, French or German. 

This summary application form is to facilitate the Commission Services to conduct a preliminary as-
sessment  to  establish  if  an  application  to  mobilise  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  is  admissible.  It  is  by  no 
means meant to be a binding interpretation of the terms of Regulation 2012/2002. If an application is 
deemed admissible, then a full and proper examination of the application will proceed in accordance 
with the terms of the Regulation. For guidance and clarity, you are requested to refer to the EU Soli-
darity  Fund  Regulation  and  to  the  applications  operational  manual  provided  by  the  Solidarity  Fund 
Team, DG Regional Policy. Each question has a guidance reference number to enable you to consult 
the  manual  for  an  explanation  and guidance  note  to  assist  you to  respond  to  the  questions  outlined 
hereunder. 

The application documents, including the summary application form should be transmitted to: 

Guideline 
Reference 
Number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DG REGIONAL POLICY 
B-1049 Brussels 
Belgium 

An electronic version of the application should be send to: 

eu-solidarity-fund@cec.eu.int 

Information required 

To be completed by applicant country 

Country affected 

Kind and characteris-
tics of disaster 

Date of first damage 
caused by the disaster 

Body introducing re-
quest 

Administrative Contact: 
Name 
Function 
Address 
Phone 
Fax 
Email 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Please confirm that no 
damage relating to 
your application was 
caused prior to the 
date indicated und 
point 3 above 

Is the disaster a natural 
disaster? 

If not a natural disaster, 
please describe 

Justification for inter-
vention of EUSF 

Outline the serious re-
percussions that the 
disaster has had on 
living conditions, the 
natural environment or 
the economy? 

10   

Estimate of the total 
direct damage 

Of which public 

11    What percentage of 

Gross National Income 
does the damage rep-
resent? 

12   

Damage above € 3 bil-
lion or 0.6% of GNI? 

Questions 13 to 18 (grey section) need to be answered only if the disaster does not qualify as “major 
disaster”, i.e. when total direct damage is smaller than € 3 billion (in 2002 prices) or 0.6% of your coun-
try’s GNI (the smaller of the two figures applies) 

13   

Is a neighbouring 
country affected by 
the same disaster? 

14   

Affected region(s)/area   

15   

16   

Population living in 
affected regions/area 

To what extent is the 
major part of popula-
tion affected? 

Describe nature of af-
fectedness 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17   

Outline the serious 
and lasting repercus-
sions on living condi-
tions 

…and economy stabil-
ity of the affected re-
gion 

18   

Is the affected area 
remote or isolated? 
Please describe 

19   

Estimated cost of eligible operations (following Art 3 of the EUSF regulation) 

TOTAL amount 

Breakdown by category: 

A) Immediate restora-
tion to working condi-
tions of infrastructure 
and plant in the fields 
of: 

(1) energy 

(2) water and waste 
water 

(3) telecoms 

(4) transport 

(5) health 

(6)education 

B ) 
(1) temporary accom-
modation 

(2) rescue services 

C) 
(1) preventive infra-
structures, 

(2) immediate protec-
tion of cultural heri-
tage 

D) Immediate cleaning 
up of disaster stricken 
area/natural zones. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20   

Share of "eligible" 
cost in relation to total 
direct damage amount 

21    What other sources of 

Community funding 
have you received/ will 
you use to cover total 
damage? 

22   

Other sources of funding 

~ national   

~ international   

~ insurance   

23   

24   

25   

26   

27   

To what extent is the 
eligible cost insur-
able? 

Is there any 3rd party 
liability caused (e.g., 
"Polluter pays" princi-
ple)? 

Are you aware of any 
other countries con-
cerned by same disas-
ter? If so, please state. 

Have you submitted or 
plan to submit other 
requests for assis-
tance from other 
Community Instru-
ments for the same 
disaster. 

Do you intend to apply 
for EIB loan for ex-
penditure related to 
the disaster; amount 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: 

Summary Guidelines for EUSF Applications – Operational 
Manual 

These guidelines and headings are drafted to provide help for presenting claims. They do not 
give an exhaustive presentation of the obligations of the 2002 EUSF Regulation, and do not 
consider legal questions in detail, and should not be understood as an interpretation of the 
Regulation. The information provided is therefore without prejudice to the position the Com-
mission  will  take  on  the  basis  of  the  information  received.  Reference  numbers  correspond 
with those in the application form. 

Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

Nature of information 
required 

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

1 

  Country affected 

Member State or candi-
date country 

Article 
2(1) 

2 

3 

  Kind and charac-
teristics of disas-
ter 

Brief description 

  Date of first dam-
age caused by 
disaster 

Date 

Date of applica-
tion 

Date upon which the 
Commission receives the 
application 

Article 
4(1) 

This is the starting date for eligibility of fund-
ing; applications must be received within 10 
weeks of this date. It is not possible to chose 
later date in order to meet deadline 

Official registration at Commission 

4 

Body introducing 
request 

Name and function of 
person/ administration 
addressed to whom and 
by whom? 

Article 
5(3) 

Must be a National Government 

Administrative contact: 
Telephone, Fax, e-mail 
etc 

This should be the person(s) with whom the 
Commission can directly correspond for any 
further questions relating to the application. 

To assist the speedier translation of the appli-
cation, an electronic copy of the hard copy 
would be welcome where possible 

yes/no 

Article 
4(1) 

Must also state the duration of events that 
caused damage 

5 

  Please confirm 
that no damage 
relating to your 
application was 
caused prior to 
the date indicated 
und point 3 above 

6 

Is the disaster a 

yes /no 

Article 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

Nature of information 
required 

natural disaster? 

7 

If not a natural 
disaster, please 
describe? 

description  

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

2(1) 

Preamble 
5 

reasons why EUSF 
should be mobilized 

brief description 

Article 
4(1) 

8 

9 

  Justification for 
intervention of 
EUSF 

  Outline the seri-
ous repercus-
sions that the dis-
aster has had on 
living conditions, 
the natural envi-
ronment or the 
economy? 

Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

Disasters other than natural can qualify but 
require special justification. While non-natural 
disasters are not excluded, the Regulation 
reserves EUSF aid "mainly" for natural 
events. This criterion was introduced into the 
Regulation among other reasons in order to 
avoid conflicts with the "polluter pays" princi-
ple and not to undermine legal liability for 
damages caused. If a state applies for EUSF 
aid in spite of non-natural incident it must give 
reasons why the intervention of the EUSF 
might nevertheless be justified (e.g. bank-
ruptcy of the liable party).The fact that the li-
able party was not sufficiently insured should 
not in itself be a sufficient reason. 

Expected repercussions and duration of inci-
dent etc with which affected country cannot 
cope alone 

10    Total direct dam-

age 

Estimated amount (Million 
€) 

Article 
4(1)a 
Article 2 

Economic losses (income losses etc) and no-
tional damage may not be included. 

Immediately required preventive measures 
and essential repairs are acceptable because 
they aim to restore conditions to as normal as 
possible. Structural improvements that exceed 
the "status quo ante" limits could not be ac-
cepted as damage. 

of which “public” damage 
(amount and % of total) 

Preamble 
4 

Public damage related to all state-owned as-
sets and infrastructure and cost of emergency 
operations/services 

amount and % of total 

In 2003 the Commission applies harmonised 
2001 figures (latest stable figures), see An-
nex 1 

11    What percentage 
of Gross National 
Income (GNI 2001) 
does the damage 
represent? 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

12   

Nature of information 
required 

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

Is the damage 
above the thresh-
old of 0.6% of GNI 
or € 3 billion in 
2002 prices? 

Yes/no and total amount 
of estimated damage in 
Euro 

Article 
2(1) 

To reflect 2002 prices the Commission applies 
an deflator to the 3 billion figure. The most 
recent deflator used in the Community budget, 
based on the macro-economic evolution in the 
Union, is 1.8%. Thus 3 billion in 2002 prices 
correspond to 3.054 billion in 2003 prices (3 
x 1.018). 
If the answer is yes it is not necessary to reply 
to questions 13 to 18 (grey section). If the an-
swer is no, Regulation 2102/2002 only applies 
if the disaster occurring at a regional level is 
exceptional and meets the criteria laid down in 
Article 2(2), final subparagraph. To qualify for 
EUSF aid regional disasters need to meet the 
following criteria which the "Commission must 
examine with the utmost vigour". There must 
be present an exceptional set of circum-
stances of an extraordinary disaster, mainly a 
natural one. Any ordinary disasters would 
normally be expected to give rise to excep-
tional circumstances. The fact that the Regu-
lation particularly sets up this requirement 
obliges the applicant State to provide evi-
dence demonstrating the more than ordinary 
character of the disaster which must have par-
ticularly severe consequences. The fact that 
the Regulation allows a maximum of only 
7.5% (i.e. 75 million) of the annual amount of 
€1 billion available to the EUSF clearly indi-
cates that the majority of regional disasters 
are considered not to qualify for EUSF aid. 

13   

If damage is be-
low threshold, is 
the neighbouring 
country criterion 
met? 

14    Affected region 

yes / no 

Article 2 
(2) 

A country may exceptionally be eligible for 
EUSF aid if it has been hit by the same disas-
ter as a neighbouring country found eligible 

administrative regions or 
definition of affected area 

Article 
2(1) 

As disasters do not respect administrative 
boundaries, the applicant State may, subject 
to verification by the Commission, define the 
region following a criterion of its choice and 
reflecting the nature of the damage. This must 
have to be clearly explained in the request 
and the population of that region must be 
numbered. The affected area/population must 
be of significant size. 

15    Population living 

number 

in affected area 
/regions(s) 

Article 
2(2) 

Normal resident population, not counting tour-
ists etc. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
  
Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

Nature of information 
required 

16    To what extent is 
the major part of 
population af-
fected? 

number or % of total 

description of nature of 
affectedness 

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

Article 
2(2) 

Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

It is not sufficient for an individual to live in the 
region. To qualify there should be some form 
of direct affectedness such as loss of or dam-
age to health or property or economic damage 
(e.g. incapacity to exercise one’s occupation) 
or other form of serious personal disadvan-
tage, such as provisional housing, impossibil-
ity to send children to school etc. 
Major part of the population should be under-
stood to mean more than 50%. States may 
base their application on an area, which is 
most severely hit but smaller than the actual 
area really affected in order to fulfil the popu-
lation criterion. This can be acceptable but in 
such case the damage declared must only 
relate to the region defined. 

Article 
2(1,2) 

It should be noted that the smaller the af-
fected region is or is defined, the more difficult 
it will be to show that the economic stability of 
that region suffers from severe and lasting 
repercussions. 

Lasting should mean not significantly less 
than one year. 

17    Outline the -

serious and last-
ing repercussions 
on living condi-
tions and econ-
omy stability. 

demonstrate direct nega-
tive impact on the popula-
tion such as lasting provi-
sional housing, lasting 
unavailability of normal 
infrastructures (water, 
energy, major transport 
infrastructures, telecom 
etc). demonstrate signifi-
cant negative impact on 
employment and/or eco-
nomic activity (significant 
rise in unemployment, 
significant drop in indus-
trial or agricultural pro-
duction, significant drop 
in the services sector, 
e.g. in tourism etc). 

18   

Is the affected 
area in a remote 
or isolated re-
gion? 

describe remote or iso-
lated character of af-
fected region, such as 
insular or outermost 

Article 
2(2) 

Particular focus will be on remote or isolated 
regions, such as the insular and outmost re-
gions. While this criterion does not exclude 
other regions, the fact that it has been set up 
obliges applicant states to provide particular 
evidence for the remoteness or isolation of the 
region…. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
  
Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

Article 
3(1,2) 

Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

19    Estimated cost of 
eligible opera-
tions (following 
Art 3 of the EUSF 
regulation) 

Nature of information 
required 

Provide figures broken 
down following the cate-
gories of the regulation : 
A. Immediate restoration 
to working order of infra-
structure and plant in the 
fields of energy ,water 
and waste water, tele-
communications, trans-
port, health and educa-
tion. B. Providing tempo-
rary accommodation and 
funding rescue services 
to meet the immediate 
needs of the population 
concerned. C. Immediate 
securing of preventive 
infrastructures and meas-
ures of immediate protec-
tion of the cultural heri-
tage. D. Immediate clean-
ing up of disaster-stricken 
areas, including natural 
zones. 

20    Share of eligible 
costs in relation 
to total direct 
damage 

% 

description / estimated 
amount (e.g. use of 
Structural funds etc) 

Article 6 

21    What other 

sources of Com-
munity funding 
have your re-
ceived to date o 
cover total dam-
age 

22    State the other 

sources of financ-
ing  

description / estimated 
amount/ % of total dam-
age 

Article 
6(2) Arti-
cle 4(1) 

- national 

- international 

- insurance 

all other sources of funding, including public 
and private insurance that might contribute to 
the cost of repairing damage has to be speci-
fied 

23    To  what  extent  is 
the  eligible  cost 
insurable? 

Estimated amount/ share 
of eligible cost 

Article 
3(3) 

Specify to what extend you consider that the 
eligible operations should have been, or effec-
tively were covered by insurance. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Refer-
ence 
Num-
ber 

24   

Nature of information 
required 

Legal 
Basis 
where 
applicable 

Guide Notes + Commission Methodology 
in processing application in accordance 
with EUSF Regulation 

Is  there  any  3rd 
party 
liability 
caused (e.g., "Pol-
luter  pays"  princi-
ple)? 

Indicate whether you ex-
pect to receive any com-
pensation payments, from 
whom, amount 

Applies particularly in cases of non-natural 
disasters 

Preamble 
6 

25    Are  you  aware  if 
other 
countries 
are  concerned  by 
same  disaster?  If 
so  please  state 
which. 

26    Have  you  submit-
ted  or  plan 
to 
submit  other  re-
quests  for  assis-
tance  from  other 
Community 
In-
struments  for  the 
same disaster. 

27    Do  you  intend  to 
apply  for  EIB  loan 
for 
expenditure 
related  to  the  dis-
aster; amount 

Name instrument (e.g. 
EAGGF) and possible 
amount 

Briefly describe purpose 
of envisaged EIB loan 
and amount 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Annex to Summary Guidelines for EUSF Applications -Operational Manual 

Gross National income 2001 

Country 

GNI 2001 

0.6% of GNI 

BALGARIJA 

BELGIQUE-BELGIË 

CESKA REPUBLIKA 

DANMARK 

DEUTSCHLAND 

15 202.88

258 869.00

61 396.57

175 220.24

91.22

1 553.21

368.38

1 051.32

2 055 790.00

12 334.74

EESTI 

ELLADA 

ESPAÑA 

FRANCE 

IRELAND 

ITALIA 

KYPROS 

LATVIJA 

LIETUVA 

LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-
DUCHÉ) 
MAGYARORSZÁG 

MALTA 

NEDERLAND 

ÖSTERREICH 

POLSKA 

PORTUGAL 

ROMÂNIA 

SLOVENIJA 

SLOVENSKÁ REPUBLIKA 

SUOMI/FINLAND 

SVERIGE 

UNITED KINGDOM 

* (~ 3 billion in 2002 prices) 

5 857.16

131 749.00

642 802.00

1 469 211.00

97 712.34

1 209 964.26

10 230.37

8 653.06

13 186.96

19 154.76

53 260.67

4 043.74

424 185.00

207 785.81

202 503.31

119 687.40

44 382.65

21 766.59

23 489.16

134 842.00

242 811.68

1 608 443.19

35.14

790.49

3 856.81

8 815.27

586.27

7 259.79

61.38

51.92

79.12

114.93

319.56

24.26

2 545.11

1 246.71

1 215.02

718.12

266.30

130.60

140.93

809.05

1 456.87

9 650.66

(Million €)
Normal interven-
tion threshold 
2003 

91.22

1 553.21

368.38

1 051.32

3 054.00*

35.14

790.49

3 054.00*

3 054.00*

586.27

3 054.00*

61.38

51.92

79.12

114.93

319.56

24.26

2 545.11

1 246.71

1 215.02

718.12

266.30

130.60

140.93

809.05

1 456.87

3 054.00*

EN 

40 

   EN