COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The Future of the European Union Solidarity Fund
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to disaster victims, fund (EU), operation of the Institutions

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.10.2011 
COM(2011) 613 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The Future of the European Union Solidarity Fund 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

6.6. 

7. 

8. 

The results of eight years of Solidarity Fund intervention........................................... 3 

Issues and Questions .................................................................................................... 4 

A disproportionate number applications based on "exceptional" criteria .................... 4 

Unclear regional criteria and lack of transparency ...................................................... 4 

Responsiveness and visibility ...................................................................................... 4 

Scope ............................................................................................................................ 6 

Financing...................................................................................................................... 6 

The 2005 proposal for an amended Solidarity Fund with an enlarged scope .............. 7 

The special report form the Court of Auditors (performance audit)............................ 7 

Results of the 2010 COCOF survey............................................................................. 8 

Adjusting the Regulation.............................................................................................. 8 

A clearly defined scope for the Solidarity Fund .......................................................... 9 

A simple new definition for regional disasters .......................................................... 10 

Speeding up payments and introducing advances...................................................... 11 

Responding to slowly unfolding disasters ................................................................. 11 

Merging grant decisions and implementation agreements......................................... 12 

Making the Fund a more effective instrument for disaster and climate change 
resilience .................................................................................................................... 12 

The Solidarity Clause in Art 222 TFEU .................................................................... 13 

Summary and conclusions.......................................................................................... 13 

Annex 1: Thresholds for major disasters applicable in 2011 ................................................... 15 

Annex 2: EU Solidarity Fund Applications 2002 - 2010 ......................................................... 16 

Annex 3: Statistical overview of Solidarity Fund applications................................................ 19 

Annex 4: Regional GDP Simulation (n-3) ............................................................................... 20 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The Future of the European Union Solidarity Fund 

1. 

THE RESULTS OF EIGHT YEARS OF SOLIDARITY FUND INTERVENTION 

The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF)1 was created in 2002 to provide the EU with an 
instrument  which  would  allow  responding  effectively  to  major  natural  disasters  affecting 
Member  States  or  countries  negotiating  their  accession  to  the  EU2.  Previously,  no  such 
instrument existed for internal action. 

Until the end of 2010 the Commission received 85 applications for financial assistance from 
23  different  countries:  27  of  these  applications  fall  within  the  category  of  "major  natural 
disaster"  which  is  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  Fund.  The  Regulation  defines  major 
disasters as having caused damage exceeding a threshold specific to each country and defined 
as  the  lower  of  0,6%  of  Gross  National  Income  (GNI)  or  EUR 3 billion  in  prices  of  2002 
which  in  2011  corresponds  to  EUR 3,536 billion3.  Thresholds  applicable  to  individual 
countries in 2011 are given in Annex 1. 

Almost two thirds of all applications received since the creation of the Fund related however 
to the two exceptions laid down in the Regulation which allow mobilising the Fund even if 
damage  remains  below  the  threshold.  53  applications  were  presented  as  so-called 
"extraordinary  regional  disasters"  and  4  under  the  criteria  for  disasters  in  a  "neighbouring 
country". In the latter case an eligible country affected by the same disaster as another eligible 
country where the occurrence of a major disaster has been accepted may also benefit from the 
Fund  irrespective  of  the  size  of  the  damage.  Extraordinary  regional  disasters  are  defined  as 
having affected the major part of the population in the region concerned and having serious 
and lasting repercussions on the living conditions and the economic stability of the region. 

Overall,  between  the  creation  of  the  Solidarity  Fund  in  2002  and  the  end  of  2010,  42 
applications  were  approved  with  financial  aid  totalling  more  than  EUR  2,4  billion4.  During 
this period the Commission had to reject 35 requests for aid, all of which were presented as 
"extraordinary regional disasters" as they were found not to meet the exceptional criteria. Two 
applications were withdrawn by the applicant States once it had become clear that they would 
not  be  successful.  At  the  end  of  December  2010  the  decision  on  six  applications  was  still 
pending.  As  natural  disasters  within  Europe  have  continued  to  grow  both  in  size  and 
frequency,  the  requests  have  concerned  a  variety  of  different  types  of  natural  disasters 

1 

2 
3 

4 

Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity 
Fund (OJ L 311 of 14.11.2002, p. 3) 
Currently Croatia, Turkey and Iceland 
In 2011, the EUR 3 billion threshold applies to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, 
for  all  other  countries  the  0.6%  of  GNI  threshold  applies,  ranging  in  absolute  terms  from 
EUR 32,7 million  for  Malta  to  EUR 3,339 billion  for  the  Netherlands.  For  reasons  of  availability  of 
harmonised statistical data from EUROSTAT, GNI-figures for year n-2 are used.  
Including payments in 2011 for eight cases approved in 2010. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
including storms, floods, mudslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, forest fires and drought, 
the most serious case being the 2009 earthquake at L'Aquila in Italy with over EUR 10 billion 
damage  and  tens  of  thousands  people  made  homeless  where  the  Fund  intervened  with  over 
EUR 492 million, the highest grant paid out so far. Annexes 2 and 3 give an overview of all 
applications received since 2002 up until the end of 2010. 

It has been widely recognised that the Solidarity Fund - judged against the purpose for which 
it  was  set  up  -  is  very  successful.  Assistance  from  the  Fund  has  helped  to  alleviate  the 
financial burden on disaster-stricken countries. Offering help and additional resources at times 
of  particular  hardship  created  a  positive  image  for  the  Union  in  the  eyes  of  its  citizens. 
Nonetheless  the  experience  gathered  shows  that  there  are  limitations  and  weaknesses  in  the 
operation of the Fund. 

2. 

ISSUES AND QUESTIONS 

2.1. 

A disproportionate number applications based on "exceptional" criteria 

As pointed out above, the experience since 2002 has shown that the majority of applications 
for  Solidarity  Fund  assistance  are  not  presented  for  major  disasters  as  intended  by  the 
legislator,  but  under  the  exceptional  criteria  for  regional  disasters.  For  such  cases  the 
Regulation  calls  for  a  special  focus  on  remote  and  isolated  regions  and  imposes  that  these 
criteria are to be examined by the Commission “with the utmost rigour”. Moreover it limits 
the maximum financial allocation per year for regional disasters to no more than 7,5% of the 
maximum amount of EUR 1 billion that may be mobilised under the Solidarity Fund in any 
given  year,  i.e.  EUR 75  million.  This  underlines  the  legislator's  intention  that  regional 
disasters should only be accepted in truly exceptional cases. 

The  rate  of  unsuccessful  applications  under  the  regional  criteria  of  almost  two-thirds 
continues  to  be  very  high.  By  contrast,  major  disaster  applications  for  which  only  a  single 
quantitative criterion applies have been accepted so far at a rate of 100%. 

2.2. 

Unclear regional criteria and lack of transparency 

The  definition  of  "extraordinary  regional  disasters"  in  the  Regulation  is  rather  vague  and 
conditions  for  activating  the  Fund  under  this  category  are  -  as  intended  by  the  legislator  - 
difficult  to  meet:  the  Fund  can  be  mobilised  only  exceptionally  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.  Evidence  for  these  conditions  is 
burdensome  to  provide  and  difficult  to  assess.  As  a  result,  applicant  States  and  the 
Commission  invest  considerable  time  and  effort  in  preparing  and  assessing  applications  for 
smaller disasters that in the majority of cases turn out not to qualify. It seems that in spite of 
detailed advice and guidance provided by the Commission many Member States feel obliged 
vis-à-vis their regions to present applications even if they are aware of the small chances of 
success. Rejected applications in return lead to frustration in the States and regions concerned 
and are detrimental for the image of the EU. 

2.3. 

Responsiveness and visibility 

The  issues  raised  with  regard  to  the  time  necessary  to  pay  out  Solidarity  Fund  grants  are 
inherent  to  the  conditions  and  procedures  imposed  by  the  Regulation.  The  Fund  is  often 
mistaken  for  a  rapid  response  instrument  for  crisis  management,  for  which  it  was  not 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
conceived.  It  is  an  instrument  to  help  re-finance  emergency  operations  financed  initially  by 
the public authorities in the affected country. Nevertheless, the Commission shares the view 
of those that call for making aid available more quickly than is currently the case. 

A number of factors limit the responsiveness of the Fund, the most important of which are the 
following: 

–  In  the  event  of  a  disaster,  the  Commission  may  not  act  upon  its  own  initiative;  it  has  to 
wait for a formal application from the national authorities which regularly need the full 10 
weeks  from  the  start  of  the  disaster  to  prepare  their  application.  Moreover,  in  many 
instances applicants update their application after its formal submission. In some cases the 
assessment  requires  the  Commission  to  request  complementary  information  which  is 
sometimes received only months later. 

–  Appropriations for Solidarity Fund grants are not directly available in the EU budget. The 
funds need to be raised by an extra financial effort of the Member States, over and above 
their normal EU contributions. Before any aid can be paid the Commission has to ask the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  approve  an  amending  budget,  which  usually 
involves a rather lengthy procedure of between two and three months, sometimes longer. 

–  The mobilisation of the Fund under the current Regulation involves a whole series of steps 
from the receipt of the application until - in the event of a positive assessment - the grant 
can be paid out. No less than four Commission decisions are required in each case: 

–  acceptance  of  the  application  as  an  eligible  case  meeting  the  criteria  of  the 
Regulation  based  on  the  assessment  of  the  application  by  the  Commission 
services, 

–  adoption of an amending budget proposal in order for Council and the European 
Parliament  to  approve  the  mobilisation  of  the  Fund  and  to  make  the  budget 
appropriations for proposed amount of aid available, 

–  adoption  of  a  Commission  decision  addressed  to  the  beneficiary  State  awarding 

the aid (Grant Decision), 

–  adoption  of  the  Agreement  for  the  implementation  of  the  grant  specifying  the 
conditions  for  using  the  grant  and  laying  down  in  particular  the  types  of 
emergency operations to be financed from the aid and nominating the responsible 
authorities (Implementation Agreement). 

–  Implementation Agreements can in principle be concluded as soon as the amending budget 
has been approved and the Commission has adopted the Grant Decision. The Commission 
systematically  requests  beneficiary  States  to  provide  the  necessary  input  (particularly  on 
the types of operations for which they intend to use the grant) as soon as it has proposed to 
mobilise  the  grant  and  while  the  amending  budget  procedure  is  ongoing.  In  many 
instances,  however,  this  input  is  received  from  the  applicant  States  only  weeks  or  even 
months after the Amending Budget has been adopted. 

–  The  Agreements  have  to  be  signed  by  the  responsible  Commissioner  and  the  designated 

representative of the beneficiary State, usually a government minister.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
–  Applications  are  not  always  submitted  in  one  of  the  main  working  languages  of  the 
Commission  so  that  translations  have  to  be  requested  in  order  for  the  Commission  to  be 
able to process the applications. Translations may require up to six weeks. In addition, the 
requirement  to  translate  all  official  documents  to  be  decided  by  the  Commission  or 
addressed to the applicant State adds further delays. 

This leads to the cumulated effect that in many instances grants can be paid out only 9 to 12 
months  after  the  disaster,  sometimes  longer.  Grants  may  be  used  retroactively  to  re-finance 
emergency operations already carried out during or in the immediate aftermath of the disaster 
and therefore maintain their intended effect of alleviating Member States' budgets and helping 
regions  overcome  the  financial  burden  inflicted  on  them  by  the  disaster.  On  the  other  hand 
such  delays  largely  impair  the  visibility  of  the  Solidarity  Fund  grant  with  the  affected 
population  in  particular  as  the  Regulation  contains  no  publicity  rules  and  not  all  Member 
States widely communicate the origins of the aid received. 

2.4. 

Scope 

Responding with the current Fund appropriately to major crises of other than natural origin is 
extremely difficult if not impossible, as illustrated by industrial accidents such as the Prestige 
oil  spill,  the  explosion  of  the  Buncefield  oil  depot  or  terrorist  acts  such  as  the  Madrid  and 
London  bombings  in  2004  and  2005.  Likewise,  it  is  not  possible  at  present  to  provide 
assistance from the Solidarity Fund in the event of a serious public health crisis - such as the 
spreading of an epidemic like SARS to Europe or caused by a major nuclear accident - which 
could easily surpass the response capacities of the individual States. Nevertheless, there have 
been  calls,  for  instance  from  within  the  European  Parliament,  that  such  events  required  a 
response at European level, specifically invoking the Solidarity Fund in such contexts. 

2.5. 

Financing 

Solidarity  Fund  grants  are  financed  outside  the  normal  EU  budget  with  additional  amounts 
money over and above the relevant headings as foreseen by the Inter-institutional Agreement. 
Grants therefore have to be approved upon proposal from the Commission on a case by case 
basis by the European Parliament and the Council. The annual ceiling is EUR 1 billion. Since 
the creation of the Fund in 2002 this amount has never been insufficient with the maximum 
amount of EUR 728 million paid out in one single year (2002) followed by EUR 622 million 
in 2009. In all other years cumulated payments were considerably lower. There seems to be 
thus no need to increase the budget ceiling. 

Individual  grants  are  paid  out  following  the  adoption  of  the  Commission's  corresponding 
amending budget proposal for the case in question and the completion of the trilogue between 
the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission.  The  procedure  would  normally 
require two readings but has been streamlined by applying a simplified procedure with only 
one  reading.  The  time  necessary  to  have  the  budget  appropriations  approved  in  each  case 
varies depending on the circumstances but usually takes between six and twelve weeks. The 
Commission  uses  this  time  to  prepare  the  formal  grant  decision  and  to  negotiate  with  the 
beneficiary State the Agreement on the implementation of the grant that has to be concluded 
before the grant can be paid out. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3. 

THE  2005  PROPOSAL  FOR  AN  AMENDED  SOLIDARITY  FUND  WITH  AN  ENLARGED 
SCOPE 

In  2005  the  Commission  presented  a  legislative  proposal  for  a  new  EU  Solidarity  Fund 
Regulation5. Building on the existing Fund this proposal aimed for  

– 

– 

– 

an enlarged scope and wider eligibility of operations, to enable the Community 
to  react  to  disasters  other  than  of  natural  origin,  e.g.  industrial  accidents  and 
other  man-made  disasters,  threats  to  the  public  health  (pandemics  etc)  and 
major terrorist actions; 

the  possibility  to  make  advance  payments,  to  accelerate  the  rate  of  response 
and the visibility of Union support; 

simplification,  by  introducing  clearer  criteria  for  the  activation  of  the  Fund 
(lowering  of  the  major  disaster  threshold  while  abandoning  the  exceptional 
criteria). 

The  proposal  was  very  favourably  received  by  the  European  Parliament.  It  adopted  the 
proposal in first reading on 18 May 2006. 

In the Council, however, the proposal met with widespread scepticism and opposition among 
a vast majority of Member States concerning almost all new elements in the proposal, and in 
particular,  in  light  of  their  potential  implications  for  the  budget.  After  a  series  of  intense 
rounds  of  examination  and  negotiation  with  the  Commission  the  relevant  Financial 
Counsellors  working  group  decided  in  May  2006  to  discontinue  examining  the  proposal.  In 
spite  of  considerable  and  repeated  efforts  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  the  Council  did  not 
wish to put the proposal back on the agenda. Similarly, repeated appeals of the Parliament to 
Council to resume examination of the text bore no fruit. 

4. 

THE SPECIAL REPORT FORM THE COURT OF AUDITORS (PERFORMANCE AUDIT) 

In June 2008, the European Court of Auditors presented the results of a performance audit on 
the Fund6. The audit examined whether the Fund was rapid, efficient and flexible in providing 
assistance and whether beneficiary States were satisfied with the Fund. To this end, the Court 
had  reviewed  all  applications  up  to  the  end  of  2006  and  carried  out  a  survey  by  addressing 
questionnaires to the applicant States. 

The report draws similar conclusions on the functioning of the Solidarity Fund as described 
above  in  respect  of  the  2005  Commission  proposal.  While  overall  the  Court  concluded  that 
the Fund is meeting its underlying objective of demonstrating solidarity with Member Sates in 
times of disaster it was, however, noted that conditions for a successful application for smaller 
'regional  disasters'  (as  opposed  to  'major  disasters')  were  more  difficult  to  meet,  not  least 
because of the rather vague definition of regional disasters in the Regulation leading also to a 

5 

6 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  European 
Union Solidarity Fund, COM(2005) 108 final of 6.4.2005 
Special  Report  No  3/2008  "The  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund:  how  rapid,  efficient  and  flexible  is 
it?" (OJ C 153, 18.6.2008) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
possible lack of clarity in the rejection of such disasters. The Court reserved its main criticism 
to the lack of rapidity of the instrument. 

5. 

RESULTS OF THE 2010 COCOF SURVEY 

In  2010,  in  order  to  better  understand  under  which  conditions  the  Member  States  would  be 
prepared  to  continue  the  discussions/negotiations  the  Commission  presented  the  Solidarity 
Fund  to  the  members  of  COCOF7,  highlighting  its  strengths  and  weaknesses  and  the  key 
elements of the 2005 proposal. Three specific questions were asked: 

– 

– 

– 

Which are the elements under the current Regulation where Member States feel that 
the Fund does not or not fully meet their expectations? 

Which of the elements in the 2005 proposal for a new Regulation could be subject 
for further deliberations (whether in the way proposed by the Commission or other)? 
Which elements appear unrealistic or undesirable? 

Are there issues/elements that you would like to see addressed/covered by the Fund 
that are contained neither in the current Regulation nor in the 2005 proposal? 

This resulted in a significant number of Member States expressing their continued opposition 
to adopting a new Regulation while some Member States seemed to see some limited scope 
for  adjustments  of  selected  items  of  the  current  Regulation,  e.g.  to  include  droughts  or  to 
soften  the  criteria  for  regional  disasters  (which  the  Commission  had  initially  proposed  to 
abolish).  Any  modification  leading  to  potentially  higher  spending  was  however  totally 
opposed  by  a  vast  majority  of  Member  States.  Six  Member  States  declared  to  be  generally 
favourable and open to discussions. 

6. 

ADJUSTING THE REGULATION 

From the above it appears clear that in the current political climate characterised in particular 
by  the  difficult  budgetary  situation  in  many  Member  States,  the  vast  majority  of  Member 
States are not prepared to accept any major changes to the legal base and functioning of the 
Solidarity Fund. The Commission therefore abandons the idea of reviving the 2005 proposal. 
Still, the Solidarity Fund as it exists today should become more effective as was demonstrated 
above. It would therefore be appropriate to withdraw the 2005 proposal and to explore other 
possibilities to address at least the most important of the issues described above. 

The  Commission  considers  that  significant  improvements  to  the  operation  of  the  Solidarity 
Fund  could  be  achieved  by  introducing  only  a  minimum  of  adjustments  to  the  current 
Regulation while maintaining its rationale and character and without touching on its finances 
and  the  volume  of  spending.  Any  adjustment  of  the  Regulation  would  not  touch  on  the 
eligibility criteria for operations financed from the aid such as the immediate repair of vital 
infrastructures and the costs of deploying response assets. Elements of the 2005 proposal such 

7 

Coordination Committee of the Funds created under Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 
2006  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European 
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
as  the  widening  of  the  scope,  the  modification  of  the  thresholds  or  abandoning  regional 
disasters would no longer be pursued. 

Measures  for  enhancement  of  the  visibility  through  information  and  publicity  rules  should 
also be explored. 

6.1. 

A clearly defined scope for the Solidarity Fund 

The intention in creating the Solidarity Fund was to set up a financial instrument allowing to 
respond  at  EU  level  to  major  natural  disasters  affecting  one  or  several  Member  States  or 
countries  involved  in  accession  negotiations.  The  wording  of  the  Article 2 (1)  of  the 
Regulation  which  says  "assistance  from  the  Fund  may  mainly  be  mobilised  when  a  major 
natural  disaster  […]  occurs"  nevertheless  seems  to  suggest  that  the  Fund  could  also  be 
activated in other cases. It is not clear, however, whether "mainly" is intended to relativise the 
limitation of the Fund's scope to "major disasters", i.e. pointing to the exceptions for certain 
smaller  disasters  laid  down  in  paragraph  2  of  the  same  Article;  or  whether  it  is  intended  to 
open the Fund's scope also to disasters of other than natural origin. 

Further examination of the provisions of the Regulation reveals that mobilising the Fund for 
non-natural  disasters  would  meet  with  serious  legal  difficulties.  Article 3  specifies  that 
"payments of the Fund are in principle limited to finance measures alleviating non-insurable 
damages".  The  Commission  has  from  the  outset  interpreted  and  applied  this  provision  as 
meaning  to  exclude  private  damages  from  assistance.  Moreover,  the  polluter  pays  principle 
and  the  affected  State's  obligation  to  seek  compensation  from  third  parties  (third  party 
liability)  would  seem  to  exclude  other  than  natural  disasters  from  the  Fund.  These 
considerations  have,  for  example,  led  to  the  non-acceptance  of  the  Hungarian  application 
relating to the red sludge spill disaster of 2010. 

The  Commission's  proposal for  a new Solidarity Fund Regulation presented in 2005 among 
other  elements  aimed  at  widening  the  scope  of  the  Fund  to  include  other  than  natural 
disasters. While this proposal was welcomed by the European Parliament a vast majority of 
Member  States  in  the  Council  were  and  continue  to  be  strongly  opposed  to  any  attempt  at 
widening the scope of the Fund beyond natural disasters. 

For  the  sake  of  clarity  the  wording  of  the  current  Regulation  should  therefore  be  adjusted 
rendering it clear that the Fund applies to disasters having a natural cause only. This would 
eliminate  any  possible  ambiguity  about  the  Fund's  scope  and  thus  save  potential  applicants 
from expectations that the Commission would inevitably have to deceive - not to mention the 
considerable  effort  necessary  for  the  applicant  State  to  prepare  an  application  and  for  the 
Commission to assess it. 

At the same time the Regulation should set out that this limitation to natural disasters would 
not  exclude  from  the  outset  cases  where  a  natural  disaster  has  'cascading'  effects  and  leads 
also  to  an  industrial  disaster  (e.g.  a  flood  affecting  a  chemical  plant)  or  to  a  public  health 
disaster [e.g. earthquake that disrupts water supplies triggering a (water borne) epidemic; or 
that  destroys  hospital  facilities  jeopardising  the  provision  of  care  to  those  injured  by  the 
natural disaster.] 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
6.2. 

A simple new definition for regional disasters 

As  was  shown  above  the  conditions  for  exceptionally  mobilising  the  Solidarity  Fund  in  the 
event of an "extraordinary regional disaster" laid down in Article 2 (2) third subparagraph of 
the Solidarity Fund Regulation are not sufficiently clear and primarily based on "soft" criteria 
that  require  interpretation  ("serious  and  lasting  repercussions  on  living  conditions  and  the 
economic stability"). Demonstrating and verifying whether they are met is very burdensome 
and time-consuming, both for the applicant as for the Commission. This ambiguity leads to a 
high  number  of  applications  that  subsequently  have  to  be  rejected  which  creates  false 
expectations  and  subsequently  frustration  in  the  countries  and  regions  concerned.  The  high 
number of cases that are not accepted is bad for the image of the EU.  

It  might  therefore  be  appropriate  to  redefine  the  criteria  for  regional  disasters  in  a  simple, 
objective and transparent manner, similar to those for major disasters, with no more than one 
or two easy to verify "hard" indicators. These should be set in a manner that would easily be 
met  in  the  case  of  really  serious  regional  disasters,  in  principle  by  those  types  of  regional 
disaster for which the Fund has been mobilised exceptionally under the current Regulation. At 
the  same  time  redefining  the  regional  criteria  in  this  manner  would  have  the  effect  that 
potential applicants would be able to assess with great certainty in advance whether a disaster 
will qualify for aid. Applicants would thus be spared the big effort of preparing an application 
where no positive response could reasonably be expected. 

The  Commission  suggests  defining  regional  disasters  in  a  way  similar  to  the  definition  of 
major disasters, i.e. as having caused damage above a certain threshold. The threshold would 
be a percentage rate of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level. NUTS 2 as the regional reference level 
offers itself as it is well established in cohesion policy, is sufficiently big to exclude merely 
local  events  and  statistical  data  is  readily  available.  If  a  disaster  affects  several  NUTS  2 
regions, the same threshold (i.e. % rate) would be applied in relation to the average regional 
GDP of the regions concerned. The specific conditions of outermost regions would be catered 
for as all outermost regions are defined at NUTS 2 level. In case of natural disasters cascading 
into public health disasters, additional criteria should be set up together with Member States. 

Not only would such a solution put the criteria for regional disasters on a simple and objective 
basis, it would also eliminate the difficulties to activate the Fund for disasters like forest fires 
(provided  they  have  created  sufficiently  big  damage)  which  by  their  nature  currently  rarely 
meet the regional disaster criteria. 

For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  feasibility  of  such  an  approach  the  Commission  has  done  a 
simulation  by  applying  the  single  criterion  of  damage  exceeding  1,5%  of  regional  GDP  at 
NUTS 2 level to all regional disaster applications received since 2002 and decided before the 
end of 2010. The reference value of regional GDP is the year  n-3 whereby n represents the 
year  of  application  (n-3  is  the  most  recent  year  for  which  harmonised  regional  data  is 
generally available). The results are shown in Annex 4. Of the 37 regional disasters examined 
only two cases that were previously accepted would not have qualified whereas one case that 
was  not  accepted  would  have  qualified;  in  one  case  there  are  doubts  over  the  amount  of 
damage  caused.  All  other  cases  would  have  led  to  the  same  result,  with  the  significant 
difference  that  23  applications  for  smaller  disasters  that  had  to  be  rejected  would  not  have 
been presented in the first place as Member States would not have been in doubt about their 
non-eligibility. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
This demonstrates that in applying a single, simple GDP-based criterion it would be possible 
to  arrive  at  an  almost  identical  result  while  achieving  considerable  simplification  as 
potentially  eligible  applications  would  no  longer  need  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the 
complicated  criteria  for  regional  disasters  imposed  by  the  current  Regulation.  In  return  this 
would considerably facilitate the Commission's assessment of such applications, free it of the 
obligation to assess applications that in all likelihood would not be successful and therefore 
considerably help speeding up decision-making and paying out grants. 

Moreover,  the  above-mentioned  new  regional  criterion  would  overall  have  no  financial 
impact. 

6.3. 

Speeding up payments and introducing advances 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  current  Regulation  and  budgetary  rules  it  appears  difficult  to 
significantly  shorten  the  time  necessary  to  make  Solidarity  Fund  grants  available  without 
modifying  the  way  in  which  the  instrument  is  financed  (cf.  paragraph  2.5  above).  The 
Commission is therefore exploring new ways that would allow making financial aid intended 
to alleviate emergency situations in Member States more rapidly available. This is particularly 
important  in  the  case  of  cross-border  disasters  where  the  Commission  is  confronted  with  a 
situation  where  it  is  not  in  the  position  to  apply  equal  level  of  solidarity  vis-à-vis  an  EU 
Member State as compared to a third country to which an immediate financial assistance can 
be granted8. 

The  responsiveness  and  visibility  of  the  Solidarity  Fund  could  be  improved  by  introducing 
into the Regulation the possibility to pay advances. This would allow the Commission to take 
immediate  action  by  making  a  down-payment  as  soon  as  the  affected  State  has  applied  for 
assistance. The down-payment would be treated as an advance on the expected amount to be 
granted  once  the  assessment  and  budgetary  procedure  are  completed.  In  the  event  that  the 
application  is  not  accepted  the  applying  State  would  repay  the  advance  to  the  Commission. 
The amount of the advance could be calculated as a percentage rate (e.g. 10%) of the expected 
grant and be limited in absolute terms (e.g. to EUR 5 million). Advances would only be paid 
upon  specific  request  of  the  applicant  State  and  be  limited  to  cases  of  major  disasters  as 
defined by the Regulation. As the likelihood of aid for a major disaster being approved is very 
high  (until  present  100%)  the  risk  for  the  Commission  of  having  to  recover  any  advance 
payments because of the non-acceptance of an application would be very limited. A similar 
provision was already included in the 2005 proposal. 

6.4. 

Responding to slowly unfolding disasters 

On  a  number  of  occasions  applicant  States  have  experienced  difficulties  in  meeting  the 
application  deadline  where  disasters  were  of  a  slowly  unfolding  nature.  The  current 
Regulating provides that applications must be presented to the Commission within 10 weeks 
of the date of the first damage. Droughts are a typical example for such disasters which are 
not  only  characterised  by  the  long  period  of  time  over  which  they  develop  but  also  by  the 
difficulty to determine exactly when the first damage occurred. 

8 

Following  the  floods  in  Central  Europe  in  May  and  June  2010,  Commission  approved  immediate 
emergency funding to assist the floods victims in Moldova while Solidarity Fund assistance related to 
the  floods  in  Hungary,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Czech  Republic,  Croatia  and  Romania  has  been  granted  10 
months after the disaster. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While  the  general  10  week  deadline  should  be  maintained  the  issue  could  be  solved  by 
introducing  a  specific  provision  into  the  Regulation  stipulating  that  in  such  cases  the 
application deadline would start with the date of the first action taken by the public authorities 
in response to the phenomenon in question; for example, in the case of droughts, when water 
consumption restrictions are put in place or when specific measures to assist agriculture are 
taken. 

Such  a  provision  would  largely  correspond  to  what  applies  to  "normal"  suddenly  occurring 
disasters where public intervention usually starts within hours of the event. 

6.5.  Merging grant decisions and implementation agreements 

Paragraph 2.3 above highlights the potential sources of delay in making grants available. As 
the Fund is financed outside the normal EU budget, the Commission has to seek the approval 
of the European Parliament and the Council for the amount of aid proposed in each case. The 
Commission considers that the currently applicable procedure should not be changed. 

There  is  nevertheless  considerable  scope  for  streamlining,  cutting  administrative  procedures 
and  gaining  time  for  providing  assistance  under  the  Solidarity  Fund  if  only  a  single 
Commission act were necessary before a grant can be paid out once the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  have  made  the  financial  resources  available.  As  far  as  Member  States  are 
concerned, i.e. the vast majority of potential beneficiaries, there is no added value in dividing 
up the act granting the aid and the act laying down the conditions for using the grant (grant 
decision  and  implementation  agreement).  Merging  the  two,  for  example  by  including  the 
provisions currently contained in the agreement with the grant decision or by making them an 
annex to the grant decision appears a rather simple solution with great time-saving effect. It is 
estimated that in this way - by a simple amendment of the relevant Article of the Regulation - 
aid to disaster stricken countries could be paid out four to eight weeks earlier than under the 
current system. Obviously, the two elements of core interest to beneficiaries, i.e. the definition 
of eligible operations and the designation of competent authorities would continue to be done 
based on the proposal by the beneficiary State. 

For  eligible  non-Member  States,  i.e.  the  limited  number  of  countries  in  the  process  of 
negotiating  their  accession  to  the  EU  this  separation  would  have  to  be  maintained  as  a 
unilateral  act  of  the  Commission  such  as  the  grant  decision  alone  would  not  be  binding  for 
them. In such cases a financing or implementation agreement would continue to be required. 

6.6.  Making  the  Fund  a  more  effective  instrument  for  disaster  and  climate  change 

resilience 

In a Union of solidarity it is equally important for each Member State to make the requisite 
efforts to prevent emergencies and disasters from occurring. A fundamental objective of any 
policy of disaster management is to prevent disasters happening and, when they do occur, to 
limit  damages  as  far  as  possible. Closer  linking  of  the  operation  of  the  fund  to  the  EU's 
disaster management and climate change policies has the potential9 to reduce the damages and 
costs  caused  by  disasters  considerably  and  ultimately  reduce  the  number  of  applications  for 
assistance.  

9 

A  1% reduction  in  damages  from  disasters  would  save  Europe  EUR 150  million  a  year,  source:  EM-
DAT database 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Regulation  already  contains  an  obligation  for  the  beneficiary  State  to  detail  in  the 
implementation report the measures introduced or proposed in order to limit damage and to 
avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters. It is proposed to strengthen this 
provision,  which  is  of  a  relatively  general  nature,  to  make  it  more  specific.  The  beneficiary 
State would be requested to detail in the report  the status of the implementation  of relevant 
EU legislation on assessment, management and disaster prevention, lessons learned from the 
disaster and commit to measures to ensure climate change and disaster proven resilience.  

The  Commission  will  also  explore  with  stakeholders the  feasibility  of  modulating  payments 
under  the  Solidarity  Fund  according  to  the  degree  of  implementation  of  relevant  EU 
legislation  on  disaster  prevention,  the  preparation  of  disaster  management  plans  and  the 
uptake of available EU funding for investments in disaster prevention measures.  

7. 

THE SOLIDARITY CLAUSE IN ART 222 TFEU 

Article 222 TFEU introduces for the first time into the Treaty a provision that the Union and 
its Member States must act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a 
terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. Article 222 provides that the 
Union must mobilise all instruments at its disposal: 

(a) 

(b) 

to prevent a terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; protect democratic 
institutions  and  the  civilian  population  from  any  terrorist  attack,  assist  a  Member 
State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist 
attack; and 

to assist a MS in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of 
natural or man-made disaster. 

Implementation  of  the  Solidarity  Clause  will  encompass  all  existing  response  instruments 
including the Solidarity Fund fully respecting their specific procedures and functioning under 
the new Multi-Annual Financial Framework. The present Communication is without prejudice 
to these broader reflections.  

8. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

While it can rightfully be said that since its creation the Solidarity Fund has generally been 
working well - in particular when considering the specific purpose for which it was created - 
the  experience  gained  over  the  past  eight  years  shows  that  there  are  some  important 
limitations and weaknesses in the operation of the Fund. These relate essentially to the lack of 
rapidity with which aid from the Fund is made available and the transparency of the criteria 
for mobilising the Fund. 

Given that a majority of Member States have serious reservations about any major changes to 
the principles and functioning of the Solidarity Fund, in particular if these could lead to higher 
spending the Commission is withdrawing its proposal from 2005 for a revised and widened 
Fund. 

On the other hand, the Commission believes that the functioning of the Solidarity Fund should 
be improved and that limited adjustments to the current Regulation bear serious potential for 
simplifications, clarification and in particular for improving the responsiveness of the Fund in 
order to make financial aid to disaster stricken countries available much more rapidly. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
The  purpose  of  the  present  Communication  is  to  highlight  this  potential  as  a  basis  for 
discussion with the European Parliament, Member States in the Council, the regions and other 
stakeholders and to aim for a possible legislative proposal amending the current Regulation at 
a later stage, taking account of the results of this discussion. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Annex 1:  
Thresholds for major disasters applicable in 2011 
(based on 2009 figures for Gross National Income) 

Council  Regulation  (EC) No 2012/2002  setting  up  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  defines  the 
threshold for the mobilisation of the Fund for a given country as damage exceeding 0,6% of 
GNI or EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices. The lower of the two applies. 

Country 

GNI 2009* 

0.6% of GNI* 

(million €) 

Major disaster 
threshold 2011* 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

ÖSTERREICH 

BELGIË/BELGIQUE 

BULGARIA 

KYPROS 

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA 

DEUTSCHLAND 

DANMARK 

EESTI 

ELLADA 

ESPAÑA 

SUOMI/FINLAND 

FRANCE 

HR*** 

HRVATSKA 

HU 

IE 

MAGYARORSZÁG 

ÉIRE/IRELAND 

IS*** 

ICELAND 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

ITALIA 

LIETUVA 

LUXEMBOURG (G.D.) 

LATVIJA 

MALTA 

NEDERLAND 

POLSKA 

PORTUGAL 

ROMÂNIA 

SVERIGE 

SLOVENIJA 

SLOVENSKO 

TR*** 

TÜRKIYE 

UK 

UNITED KINGDOM 

271 459 

342 261 

33 113 

16 641 

129 046 

1 628.756 

2 053.566 

198.678 

99.845 

774.274 

1 628.756 

2 053.566 

198.678 

99.845 

774.274 

2 430 940 

14 585.640 

3 535.904** 

226 447 

13 538 

226 644 

1 029 541 

171 383 

1 358.684 

81.230 

1 359.863 

6 177.246 

1 028.298 

1 922 845 

11 537.070 

43 572 

88 291 

132 601 

7 787 

261.431 
529.747 

795.607 

46.723 

1 358.684 

81.230 

1 359.863 

3 535.904 

1 028.298 

3 535.904 

261.431 
529.747 

795.607 

46.723 

1 494 576 

8 967.457 

3 535.904 

27 010 

26 765 

19 954 

5 451 

556 518 

299 518 

162 331 

113 652 

296 151 

34 704 

62 575 

330 413 

1 587 886 

162.057 

160.590 

119.723 

32.704 

3 339.108 

1 797.108 

973.986 

681.913 

162.057 

160.590 

119.723 

32.704 

3 339.108 

1 797.108 

973.986 

681.913 

1 776.908 

1 776.908 

208.224 

375.452 

1 982.480 

9 527.315 

208.224 

375.452 

1 982.480 
3 535.904 

* 
** 
*** 

Rounded figures 
In 2011 EUR 3 535.904 million corresponds with € 3 billion in 2002 prices 
Eligible Non-Member State involved in accession negotiations with the EU 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2:  
EU Solidarity Fund Applications 2002 - 2010 

Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

Damage 

(million €) 

Category10 

Aid granted 

(million €) 

2 

0 

0 

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

AT 

CZ 

FR 

DE 

Flooding 

Flooding 

Flooding (Le Gard) 

Flooding 

Total aid for 2002 applications 

2 900 

2 300 

835 

9 100 

436 

1 558 

894 

major 

major 

regional 

major 

regional 

regional 

regional 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2 

0 

0 

3 

ES 

Oil spill (Prestige) 

Earthquake (Molise/Apulia) 

Volcanic eruption (Etna) 

IT 

IT 

IT 

Flooding (North Italy) 

(1 900) 

(regional) 

GR 

Adverse winter weather 

(not clear) 

(regional) 

PT 

FR 

ES 

Forest fires 

Forest fires (Southern France) 

Forest fires (Portuguese 
border) 

MT 

Flooding 

1 228 

531 

53 

30 

major 

(regional) 

neighbouring 

major 

10 

IT 

Flooding (Friuli-Venezia-Giulia) 

(525) 

(regional) 

Total aid for 2003 applications 

2 

0 

0 

4 

1 

2 

FR 

ES 

3-9 

ES 

Flooding (Rhone delta) 

Flooding (Malaga) 

Forest fires  
(7 applications cumulated) 

10 

11 

SK 

Flooding 

SI 

Earthquake 

785 

(73) 

regional 

(regional) 

(480) 

(regional) 

all 7 rejected 

(29) 

(13) 

(regional) 

Rejected 

(regional) 

withdrawn 

134 

129 

21 

444 

728

8.626 

30.826 

16.798 

Rejected 

Rejected 

48.539 

Rejected 

1.331 

0.961 

Rejected 

107.081

19.625 

Rejected 

Total aid for 2004 applications 

19.625

10 

Applications  relating  to  disasters  with  damage  below  the  threshold  for  which  the  criteria  for  regional 
disasters were assessed as not being met are marked regional in parenthesis "(regional)" 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

Damage 
(million €) 

Category11 

Aid granted 
(million €) 

2 

0 

0 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

SK 

Storm (Tatras) 

203 

major  

5.668 

IT 

Flooding (Sardinia) 

EE 

LV 

SE 

Storm 

Storm 

Storm "Gudrun" 

223 
(amount over-
estimated) 

48 

193 

2 297 

(regional) 

Rejected 

major 

major 

major 

1.29 

9.487 

81.725 

LT 

Storm 

15 

neighbouring 

0.379 

GR 

Evros flooding  

RO 

Spring flooding 

BG 

Spring flooding  

BG 

Summer flooding 

RO 

AT 

Summer flooding 

Flooding (Tirol/Vorarlberg) 

(112) 

(regional) 

Rejected 

489 

222 

237 

1 050 

592 

major 

major 

18.798 

9.722 

major 

10.632 

major 

regional 

52.4 

14.799 

204.905

Total aid for 2005 applications 

2 

0 

0 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

UK 

GR 

HU 

ES 

Buncefield oil depot explosion 

(700) 

(regional) 

withdrawn 

Evros flooding 

Flooding 

Galicia forest fires 

372 

519 

(91) 

regional 

major 

9.306 

15.064 

(regional) 

Rejected 

Total aid for 2006 applications 

2 

0 

0 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8-
16 

17 

18 

19 

DE 

Storm "Kyrill" 

4750 

major 

FR 

ES 

ES 

UK 

CY 

ES 

IT 

FR 

GR 

SI 

La Réunion,  
Cyclone "Gamède" 

El Hierro flooding 

La Mancha flooding 

Flooding 

Forest fires 

Forest Fires Canary islands 

211 

(18) 

(66) 

4 612 

(38) 

(144) 

regional 

(regional) 

(regional) 

major 

(regional) 

(regional) 

9 applications for forest fires in 
9 regions 

- 

(regional) 

Storm Dean/Martinique 

Forest fires 

Flooding 

509 

2 118 

233 

regional 

major 

major 

Total aid for 2007 applications 

24.370

166.9 

5.29 

Rejected 

Rejected 

162.387 

Rejected 

Rejected 

not 
admissible, 
deadline 
missed 

12.78 

89.769 

8.254 

445.380

11 

Applications  relating  to  disasters  with  damage  below  the  threshold  for  which  the  criteria  for  regional 
disasters were assessed as not being met are marked regional in parenthesis "(regional)" 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Year 

Country 

Nature of the disaster 

Damage 
(million €) 

Category12 

Aid granted 
(million €) 

CY 

Drought 

165.4 

major 

7.605 

RO 

Floods 

471.4 

regional 

2 

0 

0 

8 

1 

2 

Total aid for 2008 applications 

2 

0 

0 

9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

FR 

IT 

GR 

CY 

GR 

IT 

Storm Klaus 

Abruzzo earthquake 

Forest fires 09 

Storms 09 

Evia floods 

Messina Mudslide 

Total aid for 2009 applications 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IE 

IT 

ES 

PT 

FR 

SK 

PL 

CZ 

HU 

HR 

FR 

RO 

CZ 

DE 

HR 

SI 

Flooding 09 

Tuscany flooding 09 

Andalusia flooding 10 

Madeira flooding 

Storm Xynthia 

Flooding 10 

Flooding 10 

Flooding 10 

Flooding 10 

Flooding 10 

Var flooding 10 

Flooding 10 

August Flooding 10 

Sachsen Flooding 10 

September Flooding 10 

September Flooding 10 

HU 

Red Sludge 10 

Total aid for 2010 applications 

Grand total of aid approved since 2002 

3 805.5 

10 212.0 

(152.8) 

(2.6) 

(83.2) 

(598.9) 

520.9 

(211.7) 

(709.7) 

1 080 

1 425 

649.9 

2 993.7 

204.5 

719.3 

major 

major 

(regional) 

(regional) 

(regional) 

(regional) 

regional 

(regional) 

(regional) 

major 

regional 

major 

major 

neighbouring 

major 

153.04 

neighbouring 

11.785 

19.390

109.377 

493.771 

Rejected 

Rejected 

Rejected 

Rejected 

603.148

13.022 

Rejected 

Rejected 

31.256 

35.636 

20.431 

105.567 

5.111 

22.486 

3.826 

703-778 

875.75 

436.5 

937.7 

47 

251.3 

174.32 

(regional) 

Rejected 

major 

regional 

regional 

neighbouring 

major 

regional 

24.968 

10.911 

Rejected 

1.175 

7.459 

Rejected 

281.848

2 433.757

12 

Applications  relating  to  disasters  with  damage  below  the  threshold  for  which  the  criteria  for  regional 
disasters were assessed as not being met are marked regional in parenthesis "(regional)"  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 3:  
Statistical overview of Solidarity Fund applications 

state of play: 31/12/2010 

Total n° of applications received since 2002 

85 

of which based on criteria for 

major disasters

regional disasters

“neighbouring country” criterion

Applications accepted by COM 

of which 

major disasters

regional disasters

neighbouring country criterion

Applications rejected by COM 

of which

27 

53 

5 

42 

26 

12 

4 

35 

32% 

62% 

of all applications 

of all applications 

6% 

of all applications 

49% 

of all applications 

96% 

23% 

80% 

of “major disaster” applications 

of "regional disaster” applications 

of "neighbouring country" applications 

41% 

of all applications 

regional disasters

35 

66% 

of “regional disaster” applications 

Applications withdrawn 

Decision pending 

2 

6 

2% 

7% 

of all applications 

of all applications 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Annex 4:  
EU Solidarity Fund - Applications for Funding for Extraordinary Regional Disasters 2002-2010 
Regional GDP Simulation (n-3) 

Regional Disasters 
Since 2002 

Year 

Damage 
claimed
(€ 
million) 

Remarks 

GDP 
Reference 
Year 
(n-3) 

NUTS 2 Regions 
Concerned 

Regional
GDP 

Average
GDP 

Damage
Rate 
(% of 
regional
GDP) 

Outcome 
under 
current 
criteria 
(€ million 
granted) 

Outcome 
under new 
criteria 

FR 

ES 

Flooding 
(Le Gard) 
Oil Spill 
(Prestige) 

2002 

835 

2003 

436 

1999 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

40806.3 

40806.3 

2.05% 

21 

identical 

2000 

Galicia 

34966.5 

25191.8 

1.73% 

8.626 

identical 

IT  Earthquake (Molise/Puglia) 

2003 

1558 

IT  Volcano Eruption (Sicily) 

2003 

894 

IT 

Flooding 
(North Italy) 

2003  not clear 

FR  Forest Fires (Southern France)  2003 

531 

not continuous 
region 

Principado de Asturias 
Cantabria 
País Vasco 
Molise 
Puglia 
Sicilia 

14968.9 
8488.3 
42613.3 
4913.9 
55498.1 
65549.2 

2000 

2000 

2000 

30206.0 

5.16% 

30.826 

identical 

65549.2 

1.36% 

16.798 

no application 

rejected 

identical 

2000 

PACA 

99642.6 

71225.4 

0.75% 

rejected 

no application 

Rhone-Alpes 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Corse 

137674.2 
42847.3 
4737.6 

IT 

Flooding 
(Friuli-Venezia-Giulia) 

2003 

525 

(damage 
probably 
overestimated) 

2000 

Friuli-Venezia-Giulia 

27552.6 

27552.6 

1.91% 

rejected 

not clear  

FR 

Flooding 
(Rhone Delta) 

ES 

Flooding 
(Malaga) 

ES  Forest Fires  

EN 

2004 

785 

2001 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

45250.3 

75084.7 

1.05% 

19.625 

no application 

2004 

73 

2004 

480 

PACA 

104919.2 

2001 

Andalucía 

90644.8 

90644.8 

0.08% 

rejected 

no application 

7 applications 
cumulated 

2001 

rejected  no applications 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
SK  Flooding 

2004 

29 

2001 

Vychodne Slovensko 

5220.4 

5220.4 

0.56% 

rejected 

no application 

IT 

Flooding (Sardinia) 

2005 

223 

(damage 
probably 
overestimated) 

Remote region 

EL 

Flooding 
(Evros) 

AT  Flooding (Tirol/Vorarlberg) 

EL 

Flooding 
(Evros) 

ES  Forest Fires (Galicia) 

FR 

Cyclone 
(La Réunion) 

ES  Spain - Flooding (El Hierro) 
ES  Spain - Flooding (La Mancha) 
CY  Forest Fires 
ES  Forest Fires (Canary Islands) 

FR 

Storm  
(Dean) 

RO  Floods 

EL  Forest Fires 
CY  Storms 

EL 

Flooding 
(Evia) 

IT  Mudslide (Messina) 

IE  Flooding 

Flooding (Tuscany) 

IT 
ES  Flooding (Andalusia) 

FR 

Storm 
(Xynthia) 

2005 

2005 

112 

592 

2006 

372 

2006 

2007 

2007 
2007 
2007 
2007 

2007 

91 

211 

18 
66 
38 
144 

509 

2008 

471.4 

2009 
2009 

152.8 
2.6 

2009 

83.2 

2009 

598.9 

2009 

520.9 

2009 
2010 

211.7 
709.7 

2010 

1425 

2002 

Sardinia (ITG2) 

27538.1 

27538.1 

0.81% 

rejected 

no application 

2002 

2002 

2003 

2003 

2004 

2004 
2004 
2004 
2004 

2004 

2005 

2006 
2006 

2006 

2006 

2006 

2006 
2007 

Antoliki Makedonia, 
Thraki 
Tirol 
Vorarlberg 
Antoliki Makedonia, 
Thraki 
Galicia 

5983.2 

5983.2 

1.87% 

rejected 

acceptance 

18814.7 
10039.1 

14426.9 

4.10%  14.798589 

identical 

6466.1 

6466.1 

5.75% 

9.306527 

identical 

39906.9 

39906.9 

0.23% 

rejected 

no application 

Réunion 

11650.8 

11650.8 

1.81% 

5.29 

identical 

Canarias 
Castilla-La Mancha 
Cyprus 
Canarias 

34188.3 
28338.7 
12728.1 
34188.3 

34188.3 
28338.7 
12728.1 
34188.3 

0.05% 
0.23% 
0.30% 
0.42% 

rejected 
rejected 
rejected 
rejected 

no application 
no application 
no application 
no application 

Guadeloupe 

7202.9 

7133.3 

7.14% 

12.78 

identical 

Martinique 
Nord-Vest 
Nord-Est 
Attiki 
Cyprus 

7063.6 
9480.0 
9181.1 

9330.5 

5.05%  11.785377 

identical 

101759.4  101759.4 
14673.2 

14673.2 

0.15% 
0.02% 

rejected 
rejected 

no application 
no application 

Sterea Ellada 

10072.1 

10072.1 

0.83% 

rejected 

no application 

Sicilia 
Border, Midland and 
Western 
Toscana 
Andalucía 

81623.6 

81623.6 

0.73% 

rejected 

no application 

32566.0 

32566.0 

1.60% 

13.0225 

identical 

99985.2 

99985.2 
144874.3  144874.3 

0.21% 
0.49% 

rejected 
rejected 

no application 
no application 

Total damages 
of € 2.5 billion 

2007 

Pays de la Loire 

93594.4 

68384.9 

2.08% 

35.63575 

identical 

Poitou-Charentes 

43175.3 

EN 

21 

EN