Report from the Commission - European Union Solidarity Fund - Annual Report 2008 and Report on the experience gained after six years of applying the new instrument
Date: 2009-04-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, activity report, fund (EU), testing

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.4.2009 
COM(2009) 193 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

European Union Solidarity Fund 
Annual report 2008 
and 
Report on the experience gained after six years of applying the new instrument 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part 1:  Annual Report 2008 ................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Pending applications and new applications received in 2008...................................... 3 

Financing...................................................................................................................... 5 

Closures........................................................................................................................ 6 

Part 2:  Report on the experience gained after six years of applying the new instrument 7 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 7 

Overall results of the implementation of the Fund....................................................... 7 

Limitations and weaknesses in the operation of the Fund ........................................... 8 

The Court of Auditors report on the Solidarity Fund................................................... 9 

Conclusions: Improving the functioning of the instrument ....................................... 10 

Annex 1: European Union Solidarity Fund applications in 2008 ............................................ 12 

Annex 2 : EU Solidarity Fund Applications since 2002 .......................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
PART 1: ANNUAL REPORT 2008 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund  (EUSF)  was  set  up  on  15  November  20021. 
Article  12  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  2012/2002  of  11  November  2002 
establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (hereinafter - the "Solidarity Fund 
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. The first part of this report 
presents  the  activities  of  the  Fund  in  2008  covering,  as  in  previous  reports,  the 
treatment  of  pending  and  new  applications  and  the  assessment  of  implementation 
reports with a view to preparing these for closure. 

2. 

PENDING APPLICATIONS AND NEW APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN 2008 

In 2008 the Commission dealt with four applications submitted in 2007 and received 
two  new  applications  for  EUSF  assistance.  Annex  1  gives  a  detailed  overview  of 
these cases, which were assessed in the light of the criteria set out in the Solidarity 
Fund Regulation and of the information that applicant States were able to provide. 

United Kingdom  

Following the major floods in different parts of the United Kingdom in June and July 
2007  the  UK  authorities  submitted  an  application  for  financial  assistance  on 
20 August 2007, which was completed on 26 October 2007. As total direct damages 
of  over  EUR 4.6  billion  exceeded  the  threshold  of  EUR 3.267  billion  applicable  to 
the UK for triggering the EUSF, the disaster qualified as a “major natural disaster” 
and  fell  thus  within  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  Fund.  The  Commission 
decided  on  10 December 2007  to  propose  to  the  budget  authority  to  mobilise  the 
Solidarity  Fund  and  to  grant  financial  aid  amounting  to  EUR 162.388 million.  In 
2008,  the  budget  procedure  in  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  was 
completed and the grant was paid to the United Kingdom on 27 October 2008. 

France (Martinique and Guadeloupe) 

In August 2007 the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe, two 
islands of the French Antilles, were affected by the hurricane "Dean" causing severe 
damage to infrastructures and different sectors of the economy. France submitted an 
application for financial assistance from the EUSF on 26 October 2007, which was 
completed on 8 January 2008. Having caused damage amounting to EUR 511 million 
the  storm  did  not  meet  the  criteria  set  out  in  the  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  for 
"major disasters". However, taking into consideration the particular vulnerability of 
this outermost region (specifically referred to in the Solidarity Fund Regulation) and 
the serious impact and repercussions, the Commission concluded that the application 
meets  the  specific  criteria  in  the  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  for  extraordinary 

1 

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regional  disasters.  On  10 September  2008  the  Commission  proposed  to  mobilise 
financial  assistance  of  EUR 12.780  million.  Following  the  budget  procedure  in  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  the  grant  was  paid  to  France  on  24 
December 2008. 

Greece 

In August 2007 a fairly extensive part of Greece was affected by forest fires, which 
caused  major  damage  to  different  sectors  of  the  economy  and  to  the  natural 
environment. The Greek authorities asked for EUSF assistance on 30 October 2007 
and  completed  the  application  on  24  January  2008.  Total  direct  damage  was 
estimated  at  EUR  2.118  billion.  As  this  amount  exceeds  the  threshold  of  EUR 
1 066.497 million (i.e. 0.6% of GNI), applicable to Greece, the disaster qualified as a 
“major  natural  disaster”.  On  8  April  2008  the  Commission  proposed  to  mobilise 
financial  assistance  of  EUR  89.769  million.  Following  the  budget  procedure  in  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  the  grant  was  paid  to  Greece  on 
29 September 2008. 

Slovenia 

In  mid  September  2007,  parts  of  Slovenia  were  affected  by  heavy  rain  and  storm 
leading  to  severe  floods  and  landslides.  The  disaster  caused  significant  damage  to 
infrastructure, public and private buildings, business and agriculture. The Slovenian 
authorities  submitted  an  application  for  EUSF  assistance  on  19  November  2007. 
Total direct damage was estimated at EUR 233.39 million. As this amount exceeds 
the threshold of EUR 164.27 million (i.e. 0.6% of GNI) applicable to Slovenia, the 
disaster  qualified  as  a  “major  natural  disaster".  On  3  March  2008  the  Commission 
proposed  to  mobilise  financial  assistance  of  EUR  8.254  million.  Following  the 
budget procedure in the Council and the European Parliament, the grant was paid to 
Slovenia on 12 December 2008. 

Cyprus 

In 2008, Cyprus had been suffering from a shortfall of rain that has lead to serious 
effects on living conditions, the economy and the natural environment. The Cypriot 
authorities submitted an application for EUSF assistance on 1 July 2008, which was 
completed on 16 October 2008. This was the first application relating to drought. The 
Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  requires  an  application  to  be  made  no  later  than  ten 
weeks  after  the  first  damage  caused  by  the  disaster.  Against  the  background  of  the 
three-year  period  of  unusually  low  rains,  at  the  end  of  the  rainy  season,  in  April 
2008,  the  absence  of  the  rainfall  reached  its  peak.  The  Commission,  therefore, 
considered that the 22 April 2008, i.e. 10 weeks before the application was received, 
could be accepted as starting date of the major disaster. 

total  direct  damage, 

The  Cypriot  authorities  estimated 
incurred  after 
the 
22 April 2008,  at  EUR  176.15  million.  As  this  amount  exceeded  the  threshold  of 
EUR 84.673 million (i.e. 0.6% of GNI) applicable for Cyprus, the drought qualified 
as  a  “major  natural  disaster”.  The  Commission  noted  the  fact  that  the  crisis 
concerned  a  "major  disaster",  which  affected  the  complete  territory  of  the  country. 
Major emergency measures had been taken by the public authorities from April/May 
2008 to address it. The costs of essential emergency operations relate to the transport 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
of  water  from  Greece  and  immediate  investments  into  the  water  infrastructure  to 
secure  the  functioning  of  the  water  distribution  network  under  conditions  of 
discontinued water flow. On 24 October 2008, the Commission proposed to mobilise 
financial assistance of EUR 7.605 million. 

Romania 

In July 2008 a fairly extensive part of Romania was affected by heavy rain, leading 
to  severe  flooding  and  landslides.  The  Romanian  authorities  applied  for  EUSF 
assistance  on  1  October  2008.  Total  direct  damage  was  estimated  at  EUR 471.41 
million. As this amount remained below the "major disaster" threshold for Romania 
(€ 566.84 million, i.e. 0.6% of  Romania’s GNI), representing however approximately 
83 % of the threshold, the application was assessed on the so-called “extraordinary 
regional disaster” criterion. 

The  affected  region  is  a  coherent  area,  comprising  5  counties  in  the  North-Eastern 
part  of  Romania,  with  a  population  of  3.046  million  inhabitants.  The  major  part  of 
the  population  in  the  affected  area  had  been  affected,  with  a  partial  or  total 
destruction  of  private  homes  and  agricultural  crops.  Evidence  was  presented  to 
demonstrate serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic 
stability of the affected region. Serious damage was reported to basic infrastructures, 
agriculture,  forestry,  livestock,  and  private  homes.  The  disaster  caused  lasting 
repercussions  on  living  conditions  in  the  affected  region,  with  around  14  644 
infrastructures 
households  being  destroyed, 
(water/energy),  and  a  seriously  damaged  transport  infrastructure  leading  to  a 
complete  isolation  of  around  100  municipalities.  On  22  January  2009,  the 
Commission  concluded  that  the  application  meets  the  criteria  for  extraordinary 
regional disasters, and it proposed to grant aid amounting to EUR 11.785 million 

lasting  unavailability  of  basic 

3. 

FINANCING 

The  four  cases  from  2007  for  which  the  budget  procedure  had  not  yet  been 
completed before  the end of the year (floods in the United Kingdom and Slovenia, 
forest  fires  in  Greece  and  a  hurricane  in  France/Martinique  and  Guadeloupe)  were 
dealt  with  in  three  amending  budgets.  Preliminary  Draft  Amending  Budget 
No 1/20082,  3/20083  and  7/20084  were  approved  by  the  Budgetary  Authority  on  9 
April 2008, 5 June 2008 and 21 October 2008 respectively. The payments could be 
made  after  adoption  of  the  grant  decision  and  after  the  implementation  agreement 
was signed.  

In 2008 the Fund was mobilised for one new case (drought in Cyprus)5. The amount 
of aid in each case were determined on the basis of the standard method previously 

2 
3 
4 

5 

COM (2008) 15; Amending budget 1/2008 adopted on 9 April 2008, JO L 175, p. 1 of 4 July 2008 
COM (2008) 201; Amending budget 3/2008 adopted on 5 June 2008, JO L 208 p. 1 of 5 August 2008 
COM  (2008)  556;  Amending  budget  7/2008  adopted  on  21  October,  JO  L  315  p.1  of  25  November 
2008 
COM (2008) 732; Amending budget 10/2008 adopted on 18 December 2008, JO L 27, p. 91 of 30 
January.2009 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
developed  by  the  Commission  and  explained  in  detail  in  the  2002/2003  annual 
report. The amounts of aid in 2008 were the following: 

Beneficiary 

Disaster 

Category 

United Kingdom 

Flooding 

Greece 

Slovenia 

France/ Martinique 
and Gouadeloupe  

Cyprus 

Total 

Forest fires 

Flooding 

Hurricane 

Drought 

major 

major 

major 

regional/ 
ultraperipheral 

major 

Amount of 
aid (EUR) 

162 387 985

89 769 009

8 254 203

12 780 000

7 605 445

280 796 642

For an application from Romania (Flooding) received in 2008 the budget procedure 
could  not  be  completed  before  the  end  of  the  year.  For  this  application  the 
Commission presented Preliminary Draft Amending Budgets No 1/20096, the annual 
report of next year will report on this case.  

4. 

CLOSURES 

Article 8(2) of Solidarity Fund Regulation states that no later than six months after 
the  expiry  of  the  one-year  period  from  the  date  of  disbursement  of  the  grant,  the 
beneficiary  State  shall  present  a  report  on  the  financial  execution  of  the  grant 
(hereinafter: an “implementation report”) with a statement justifying the expenditure 
(hereinafter:  a  “validity  statement”).  At  the  end  of  this  procedure,  the  Commission 
shall wind up the assistance from the Fund. 

As regards the closure of assistance of the case relating to the storm ("Gudrun") 2005 
in  Sweden,  for  which  the  implementation  report  was  received  in  on  17  and 
20 October 2007, the Commission noted that the declared expenditure amounted to 
EUR  66  455  534.  As  the  total  financial  assistance  amounted  to  €  81  724  975,  the 
remaining  balance  of  EUR  15  269  441  was  recovered.  The  Commission  wound  up 
the assistance on 8 July 2008.  

In  2008,  the  Commission  received  final  implementation  reports  for  grants  made  in 
2006  from  Bulgaria  (relating  to  the  floods  in  May  and  August  2005),  Romania 
(relating to the floods in April and July 2005) and Austria (relating to the floods in 
August 2005). At the end of the period covered by this annual report the assessment 
of these implementation reports was ongoing. 

6 

COM (2009) 22 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
PART 2: REPORT  ON  THE  EXPERIENCE  GAINED  AFTER  SIX  YEARS  OF  APPLYING  THE  NEW 

INSTRUMENT 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2002, following major floods in Central Europe, the EUSF was created in order to 
respond  to  such  events  within  the  EU  and  countries  which  had  opened  accession 
negotiations. During the first six years of its implementation, the Fund has helped to 
alleviate  the  financial  burden  on  disaster-affected  countries  and  it  has  thus  been 
beneficial  to  the  image  of  the  Union  in  the  eyes  of  its  citizens,  offering  help  and 
additional resources at times of particular hardship.  

Following  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  functioning  of  the  Fund  the  Commission 
proposed in April 2005 a revised Solidarity Fund regulation. The key elements of the 
proposal  are  an  enlarged  scope,  to  enable  the  Community  to  react  to  disasters  of 
other than natural origin, the provision for advance payments, to accelerate the rate 
of response and the visibility of Union support and a simplification, by introducing 
clearer criteria for the activation of the Fund. 

2. 

OVERALL RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUND 

Since the creation of the Fund in 2002, the Commission has received 62 applications 
for  financial  assistance  from  21  different  countries:  21  of  these  applications  fall 
under the category "major disasters", 39 under "regional disasters" and two under the 
criteria  "neighbouring  countries".  Of  these  applications,  31  led  to  the  granting  of 
financial support totalling more than €  1.5 billion. The Commission has rejected 29 
requests and two applications were withdrawn by the applicant States. The requests 
have  concerned  very  different  types  of  natural  disasters  like  storms,  floods, 
earthquakes, a volcanic eruption, forest fires and drought. Annex 2 gives an overview 
of all applications received since 2002. 

As is shown in the statistical overview below, the experience since 2002 has shown 
that  the  majority  of  applications  for  EUSF  assistance  are  not  presented  for  major 
disasters  which  represent  the  main  scope  of  the  Fund,  but  under  the  exceptional 
criteria for regional disasters. These criteria - which according to the Regulation are 
to  be  examined  by  the  Commission  “with  the  utmost  rigour”  -  continue  to  be 
relatively  difficult  to  meet.  The  rate  of  unsuccessful  applications  for  the  regional 
(exceptional) criteria, at around two-thirds, continues to be high. For major disaster 
applications  for  which  only  a  single  quantitative  criterion  applies,  the  positive 
assessments have so far a rate of 100%. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Statistical overview 

Total n° of applications received 

62 

of which major disasters 
regional disasters 
“neighbouring country” criterion 

21 
39 
2 

Applications accepted 
Applications rejected 
Applications withdrawn 

31 
297 
2 

34 % of applications 
63 % 
3 % 

50 % of applications 
47 % 
3 % 

3. 

LIMITATIONS AND WEAKNESSES IN THE OPERATION OF THE FUND 

While the Fund has generally been working well, the experience gathered during the 
first  six  years  of  its  implementation  shows  that  there  are  important  limitations  and 
weaknesses  in  the  operation  of  the  Fund.  These  relate  to  the  lack  of  rapidity  with 
which financing from the Fund is made available, the transparency of the criteria for 
mobilising the Fund in the case of "regional disasters" and the limitation to disasters 
of natural origin. 

Rapidity  

The  issues  raised  with  regard  to  rapidity  are  inherent  to  the  conditions  and 
procedures  imposed  by  the  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation.  The  EU  Solidarity  Fund  is 
often  mistaken  for  a  rapid  response  instrument  for  crisis  management,  for  which  it 
was  not  conceived.  It  is  an  instrument  to  help  re-finance  emergency  operations 
financed  initially  by  the  public  authorities  in  the  affected  country.  It  should  be 
considered  that,  first  of  all,  the  Commission  may  not  act  upon  its  own  initiative  to 
mobilise the Solidarity Fund. It has to wait for a formal application to be presented 
by the national authorities which regularly use the full 10 weeks from the start of the 
disaster  permitted  by  the  Regulation  to  make  their  application.  In  most  cases  the 
Commission  has  to  request  complementary  information.  Secondly,  the  Solidarity 
Fund money is not immediately available in the EU budget. It needs to be raised by 
an  extra  financial  effort  of  the  Member  States,  over  and  above  their  normal  EU 
contributions. Before aid can be paid the Commission has to ask the Council and the 
European Parliament to approve an amending budget, which involves a rather heavy 
procedure (lasting usually between 2 and 4 months). 

Transparency 

The definition of "regional disaster" in the Solidarity Fund Regulation is rather vague 
and  conditions  for  successful  applications  are  difficult  to  meet.  When  the  "major 
disaster"  threshold  is  not  met,  the  Fund  can  exceptionally  be  mobilised  if  an 
extraordinary regional disaster affects the majority of the population of a region and 
if  it  has  serious  and  lasting  effects  on  its  economic  stability  and  living  conditions. 
According to the Solidarity Fund Regulation, the Commission is required to examine 

7 

Form the 29 rejected applications, 27 concerned "regional disaster" applications. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
"with the utmost rigour" any regional disaster application. As a result, Member States 
and  the  Commission  invest  considerable  time  and  effort  in,  respectively,  preparing 
and assessing applications for smaller regional disasters that in the majority of cases 
nevertheless lead to rejections. 

Scope 

Responding appropriately at EU level to major crises which are not of natural origin 
with the existing instruments is extremely difficult or even impossible, as illustrated 
by  industrial  accidents  such  as  the  Prestige  oil  spill,  or  terrorist  acts  such  as  the 
Madrid  bombing  of  March  2004.  Likewise,  it  is  not  possible  at  present  to  provide 
assistance from the EUSF in the event of a serious public health crisis - such as the 
spreading  of  an  epidemic  like  SARS  to  Europe  or  caused  by  an  accident  of  the 
Chernobyl type - which could easily surpass the response capacities of the individual 
States. 

Risk Prevention 

The  Commission  will  examine  ways  to  better  integrate  risk  prevention  concerns  in 
the Solidarity Fund Regulation. 

4. 

THE COURT OF AUDITORS REPORT ON THE SOLIDARITY FUND 

In  2008,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  presented  the  results  of  a 
performance  audit  on  the  EUSF.  The  audit  examined  whether  the  Fund  was  rapid, 
efficient  and  flexible  in  providing  assistance  and  whether  recipient  states  were 
satisfied with the Fund. To this end, the Court reviewed all applications up to the end 
of 2006 and carried out a survey by addressing questionnaires to the applicant states. 
The report was published by the Court on 18 June 2008 (Special Report No 3/20088). 

The  Court  found  that  direct  costs  associated  with  managing  the  Fund  by  the 
Commission  were  low  and  so  the  Fund  was  considered  to  be  working  efficiently. 
Administrative  procedures  had  been  reduced  to  a  level  which  ensures  that  the 
procedures  are  efficient  for  beneficiary  states  as  well.  As  regards  flexibility,  the 
Court  found  no  cases  where  the  Commission  showed  a  lack  of  flexibility  in  its 
treatment  of  applications  for  aid.  It  was  however  noted  that  conditions  for  a 
successful application for smaller 'regional disasters' (as opposed to 'major disasters') 
are more difficult to meet. The report also refers to the vague definition of regional 
disasters  in  the  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  and  a  possible  lack  of  clarity  in  the 
rejection  of  such  disasters.  The  Court  reserved  its  main  criticism  to  the  lack  of 
rapidity of the instrument. The time taken between the application and the payment 
was usually about one year. The Court found therefore that the Fund did not provide 
a  rapid  response.  Despite  the  protracted process  involved  in  obtaining  aid  from  the 
Fund, states that received money were satisfied or very satisfied with the Fund. The 
Court  therefore  found  that  the  Fund  has  met  its  underlying  objective  of 
demonstrating  solidarity  with  Member  States  in  times  of  disaster.  It  was 
recommended  that  the  Commission  provide  detailed  guidance  to  applicants  and 
advice on how to achieve the prompt submission of applications. 

8 

"The European Union Solidarity Fund: how rapid, efficient and flexible is it?" OJ C 153, 18.6.2008 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  fully  agrees  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Court.  It  published 
guidelines for applicant Member States and explained in detail in what way it applies 
the provisions of the Solidarity Fund Regulation. In order to simplify the procedure 
and  to  help  avoid  delays  in  the  submission  of  information,  the  Commission 
developed  a  standard  application  form  as  well  as  a  detailed  guidance  note  for 
applications.  Both  documents  are  available  on  special  website,  dedicated  to  the 
Solidarity Fund (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/solidar/solid_en.htm). The 
Commission  will  also  continue  to  seek  direct  contact  with  the  body  preparing  the 
request, as suggested by the Court. In many cases in the past however, applications 
were submitted "ad hoc", without the applicant states seeking any prior contact with 
the  Commission.  In  order  to  simplify  the  first  contact  from  potential  applicant 
countries,  the  Commission  indicated  on  its  Solidarity  Fund  website  the  contact 
details on the side of the Commission. 

All in all, the Commission considers that the critical remarks of the Court as regards 
the lack of rapidity of the instrument and the treatment of regional disasters support 
the need for a revised instrument with simpler and clearer criteria for its activation in 
less time, as proposed by the Commission. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INSTRUMENT 

While  the  Fund  has  generally  been  working  well,  in  particular  as  regards  major 
natural  disasters  for  which  it  was  initially  set  up,  the  experiences  gathered  so  far 
underline that there is a need for further developing the instrument. This concerns in 
particular the lack of rapidity with which the funding is made available to beneficiary 
states  and  the  transparency  of  the  criteria  for  mobilising  the  Fund  in  the  case  of 
regional disasters. Both points are pointed out by the Court of Auditors. In addition, 
the instrument could be improved in order to allow responding appropriately at EU 
level  to  major  crises  which  are  not  of  natural  origin.  This  is  why  the  Commission 
adopted  its  proposal  for  a  new  Solidarity  Fund  Regulation  on  6  April  2005 
(COM(2005)108),  which  has  been  largely  supported  in  the  European  Parliament. 
This  proposal  widens  the  scope  of  the  Fund  and  introduces  a  number  of 
modifications to its operation.  

Making the Fund more transparent 

The Commission remains in favour of improving the transparency and simplicity of 
the  criteria  governing  the  mobilisation  of  the  Solidarity  Fund.  This  would  help  the 
national  authorities  to  have  a  clearer  idea  of  when  the  Fund  is  likely  to  be  able  to 
support them in recovering from a disaster. An important element therefore is a new 
definition of the criteria for triggering the Fund. The proposal to lower the threshold 
(to  €  1  bn/0.5%  of  GNI,  whatever  is  th e  lower)  while  abolishing  the  exceptional 
mobilisation  of  the  Fund  for  regional  disasters,  taken  together,  would  improve  the 
transparency of  the  Fund and avoid  deceived hopes when  applications are  rejected. 
An alternative option, based on the existing regulation while keeping the possibility 
to  mobilise  the  Fund  for  regional  disasters,  would  be  the  introduction  of  a  clear 
quantitative  threshold  for  regional  disasters,  i.e.  a  percentage  of  the  regional  GDP 
(NUTS  I  or  NUTS  II).  Both  options  would  allow  mobilising  the  Fund  based  on  a 
single  clear  criterion  -  the  importance  of  the  damage  -  in  all  those  cases  where 
European Solidarity is really needed, including those disasters for which the difficult 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
regional  criterion  is  used  today.  Through  such  a  change,  equal  treatment  would  be 
ensured and Member States would be in a better position to assess the prospect of an 
application. The ensuing lower rejection rate by the Commission (close to two-thirds 
in the case of regional disasters) would also contribute to the positive image of the 
Solidarity Fund as a solidarity instrument. 

Allowing a faster disaster response 

In order to be able to react more quickly, certain operational improvements could be 
envisaged  allowing  to  take  immediate  solidarity  action  by  making  an  advance 
payment as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance. This down-payment 
would be treated as an advance on the assistance to be granted once the assessment 
and budgetary procedure are completed. However, clear and transparent criteria for 
mobilising  the  Fund  are  a  precondition  for  such  a  faster  disaster  response  as  the 
applicant State would have to repay the advance to the Commission in the event that 
an application is not accepted. 

Widening the scope 

In  the  event  of  major  disasters  of  other  than  natural  origin  nature  citizens  rightly 
expect  the  EU  to  be  present  and  assist  –  which  is  reflected  by  calls  at  the  political 
level  for  the  EU  to  become  active.  The  Commission  therefore  considers  that  the 
Solidarity Fund should be able to respond in the event of a major crisis, independent 
of its nature or origin. The proposed new regulation of 2005 widens the scope of the 
EUSF  to  include  health,  terrorist  and  industrial/technological  disasters  (within  the 
overall annual expenditure ceiling of the EUSF). 

Moving forward  

Although  there  has  been  no  progress  in  the  Council  on  the  proposed,  revised 
Solidarity Fund Regulation since 2005, the Commission continues to be prepared to 
actively  support  the  search  for  a  compromise.  The  aim  would  be  to  identify  areas 
where a compromise could be found in order to allow the Commission to amend its 
proposal. It therefore calls on the Council and the European Parliament to re-examine 
the  Commission  proposal  of  2005  in  the  light  of  this  report  in  order  to  allow  the 
Commission to come forward with an amended proposal in 2009. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1: EUROPEAN UNION SOLIDARITY FUND APPLICATIONS IN 2008 

Applicant Country 

UK 

FR 

EL 

SI 

CY 

RO 

Name and nature of 
disaster 

Flooding 

Storm 
"Dean" 

Forest fires 

Flooding 

drought 

Flooding 

First damage date 

12/06/07 

17/8/07 

23/08/07 

18/09/07 

22/04/2008 

24/07/2008 

Application date* 

20/8/07 

26/10/07 

30/10/07 

19/11/07 

01/07/2008 

1/10/2008 

Complete information 
available on 
Major disaster threshold 
(m€) 

22/10/07 

- 

20/12/07 

- 

- 

- 

3 266.629 

3 266.629 

1 066.497 

164.272 

84.673 

566.84 

Total direct damage (m€)** 

4612 

511.2 

2118.27 

223.28 

176.15 

471.41 

Category 

major 

regional 

major 

major 

major 

regional 

Damage/threshold 

141.19% 

15.65% 

198.62% 

135.92% 

208.03 % 

83.16% 

Cost of eligible emergency 
operations (m€)** 

356.7 

119.9 

1007 

154.39 

59.45 

390.81 

Eligible cost/ total damage 

7.73% 

23.45% 

47.52% 

69.15% 

33.74% 

82.9% 

Aid/eligible cost 

45.53% 

10.66 

Aid rate 
(% of total damage) 

3.52% 

2.5 

8.91% 

4.24% 

4.95% 

3.42% 

Date of grant decision 

17/06/2008 

25/11/2008 

08/092008 

22/09/2008 

Date of Implementation 
agreement 

07/08/2008 

11/12/2008 

08/092008 

07/11/2008 

12.79% 

4.31% 

2009 

2009 

3.01% 

2.49% 

2009 

2009 

Aid granted (EUR) 

162 387 985 

12 780 000 

89 769 009 

8 254 203 

7 605 445 

11 785 377  

* 
** 

Registration of initial application at Commission 
As accepted by Commission 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 : EU SOLIDARITY FUND APPLICATIONS SINCE 2002 

Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

Damage 
(million €) 9 

Category 

Aid granted 
(million €) 

2 
0 
0 
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

AT 

Flooding 

CZ 

Flooding 

FR 

Flooding (Le Gard) 

DE 

Flooding 

Total aid for 2002 applications 

ES 

Oil spill (Prestige) 

IT 

IT 

Earthquake (Molise/Apulia) 

Volcanic eruption (Etna) 

2 900 

2 300 

835 

9 100 

436 

1 558 

894 

major 

major 

regional 

major 

regional 

regional 

regional 

IT 

Flooding (North Italy) 

1 900 

(major) 

GR 

Adverse winter weather 

not clear 

(major) 

PT 

Forest fires 

FR 

Forest fires (Southern France) 

ES 

Forest fires (Portuguese border) 

MT 

Flooding 

1 228 

531 

53 

30 

major 

48.539 

(regional) 

Rejected 

neighbouring 
country 

major 

10 

IT 

Flooding (Friuli Venezia-Giulia) 

525 

regional 

Total aid for 2003 applications 

1 

2 

FR 

Flooding (Rhone delta) 

ES 

Flooding (Malaga) 

785 

73 

regional 

(regional) 

Rejected 

3-9 

ES 

Forest fires (7 applications) 

(480) 

(regional) 

all 7 rejected  

10 

11 

SK 

Flooding 

SI 

Earthquake 

Total aid for 2004 applications 

29 

13 

(regional) 

Rejected 

(regional) 

withdrawn 

19.625 

134 

129 

21 

444 

728 

8.626 

30.826 

16.798 

Rejected 
(deadline) 

Rejected 
(deadline) 

1.331 

0.961 

Rejected 

107.081 

19.625 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2 
0 
0 
3 

2 
0 
0 
4 

9 

Data in italics is subject to verification/confirmation by the Commission 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2 
0 
0 
5 

Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

Damage 
(million €) 

Category 

Aid granted 
(million €) 

SK 

Storm (Tatras) 

203 

major  

5.668  

IT 

Flooding (Sardinia) 

(223, over-
estimated)  

(regional) 

Rejected 

EE 

Storm 

LV 

Storm 

SE 

Storm "Gudrun" 

LT 

Storm 

48 

193 

2297 

15 

major 

major 

major 

neighbouring 
country 

1.29 

9.487 

81.725  

0.379 

EL 

Evros flooding  

(112) 

(regional) 

Rejected 

RO 

Spring flooding 

BG 

Spring flooding  

10 

BG 

Summer flooding 

11 

RO 

Summer flooding 

12 

AT 

Flooding (Tyrol/Vorarlberg) 

Total aid for 2005 applications 

2 
0 
0 
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

UK 

EL 

Evros flooding 

HU 

Flooding 

ES 

Galicia forest fires 

489 

222 

237 

1050 

592 

major 

major 

18.798 

9.722 

major 

10.632 

major 

regional 

52.4 

14.799 

204.891 

372 

519 

(91) 

regional 

major 

9.306  

15.064  

(regional) 

Rejected 

Buncefield oil depot explosion 

(700) 

(regional) 

withdrawn 

Total aid for 2006 applications 

2 
0 
0 
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

DE 

Storm "Kyrill" 

4750 

major 

FR 

ES 

ES 

UK 

CY 

ES 

La Réunion,  
Cyclone "Gamede" 

EL Hierro flooding 

La Mancha flooding 

Flooding 

Forest fires 

Forst Fires Canary islands 

211 

(18) 

66 

4 612 

38 

144 

regional 

(regional) 

(regional) 

major 

(regional) 

(regional) 

8-
16 

IT 

9 applications for forest fires in 9 
regions 

- 

(regional) 

24.370 

166.9 

5.29 

Rejected 

Rejected 

162.387  

Rejected 

Rejected 

not 
admissible, 
deadline 
missed 

17 

FR 

Storm Dean/Martinique 

509 

regional 

12.78 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

18 

19 

EL 

SI 

Forest fires 

Flooding 

Total aid for 2007 applications 

Damage 
(million €) 

2 118 

233 

Category 

major 

major 

Aid granted 
(million €) 

89.769 

8.254 

445.38 

2 
0 
0 
8 

1 

CY 

Drought 

165.4 

major 

7.605  

2 

RO 

Floods 

471.4  

regional 

11.785  

EN 

15 

   EN