Ex post evaluation of the European Union Solidarity Fund 2002-2016 : case study : Italy.
Date: 2019-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU regional policy, European Union Solidarity Fund, Italy, added value, administrative formalities, case study, costing, natural disaster, risk management

Ex post evaluation of the 
European Union Solidarity 
Fund 2002-2016 

Case Study - Italy 

Framework contract No. 2014.CE.16.BAT.007 

Service contract No.: 2017CE16AAD011 

t33 
7 December 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate: Policy 
Unit of Evaluation and European Semester  
Contact: Violeta Piculescu 

E-mail:  REGIO-EVAL @ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Ex post evaluation of the 
European Union Solidarity 
Fund 2002-2016 

Case Study - Italy 

t33 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2018 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN: 978-92-76-03664-7 
doi: 10.2776/312607 

© European Union, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Table of Contents 

ITALY,  EARTHQUAKES  IN  THE  REGIONS  OF  EMILIA-ROMAGNA,  LOMBARDIA 
AND VENETO, MAY 2012 ...................................................................................... 3 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 

CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 3 

OVERVIEW OF EUSF INTERVENTION ......................................................... 4 

IMPLEMENTATION OF EUSF ....................................................................... 6 
4. 
Institutional context ..................................................................................... 6 
4.1 
Application/submission phase ........................................................................ 8 
4.2 
Appraisal/evaluation and approval phase ........................................................ 10 
4.3 
4.4 
Implementation phase ................................................................................. 11 
4.5  Closure ...................................................................................................... 15 
4.6 
Publicity and visibility ................................................................................... 16 

5. 

6. 

7. 

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUSF SUPPORT ........ 17 

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND COST ..................................................... 19 

RELEVANCE OF EUSF SUPPORT ................................................................ 20 

8. 
ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENTS ............................................................ 21 
8.1  Operational achievements ............................................................................ 21 
8.2 
Added value ............................................................................................... 22 

9. 

SYNERGIES AND COMPLEMENTARITY WITH ESIF .................................... 23 

10.  LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................. 24 

11.  REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 27 

12.  ANNEX: METHODOLOGY OF THE CASE STUDY RESEARCH ........................ 28 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

2 

 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

ITALY,  EARTHQUAKES  IN  THE  REGIONS  OF  EMILIA-ROMAGNA, 
LOMBARDIA AND VENETO, MAY 2012 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  section  presents  a  case  study  for  the  Ex  Post  Evaluation  of  the  European  Union 
Solidarity Fund, assessing the EUSF application relating to earthquakes in the regions 
of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto in May 2012 (case 91). 1 The aim of the 
case study is to analyse the implementation and performance of the EUSF as a contribution 
to understanding the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, added value and solidarity of the 
EU funding. The report sets out the context for the EUSF support and a brief overview of 
the  intervention.  It  then  examines  the  experience  of  implementation,  the  factors 
influencing implementation, the relevance of EUSF, the administrative burdens and costs 
associated with the intervention, the achievements and added value of the EUSF support, 
and the lessons learned 

2.  CONTEXT 

In  May  2012,  two  major  earthquakes  occurred  in  the  regions  of  Emilia-Romagna, 
Lombardia and Veneto in northern Italy, causing 27 deaths and major damage to buildings, 
infrastructure and the economy.2 

The first major earthquake struck the Provinces of Modena and Ferrara in the morning of 
20  May  2012,  with  a  magnitude  of  5.9  on  the  Richter  scale.  The  earthquake  was  felt 
throughout northern Italy and caused seven deaths and severe damage in the settlements 
near the epicentre. There were several hundred aftershocks, two with a magnitude of 5.1 
close  to  the  centre  of  Ferrara.  Nine  days  later,  a  second  major  earthquake,  with  a 
magnitude  of  5.8,  occurred  approximately  20km  west  of  the  initial  epicentre,  again 
followed by several aftershocks. A further 20 people were killed, mainly due to collapsing 
factory buildings. 

These  seismic  events  caused  severe  damage  to  the  three  regions  that  had  a  combined 
population of one million people. Total direct damage calculated by Italian authorities was 
EUR  13.273  billion.  Damage  was  widespread  and  had  long-lasting  effects  on  the  living 
conditions  and  economy  of  the  three  regions.  Many  manufacturing,  agriculture,  tertiary 
and mechanical industries suffered substantial losses due to damage to buildings, loss of 
infrastructure  and  transport  links,  and  disruption  to  production  chains.  A  total  of  570 
schools were damaged during the earthquakes, affecting approximately 70,000 students.  

The short-term impact has been estimated as a 0.2 percent reduction of the GDP growth 
rate for the Emilia Romagna region.3 In the longer term, the main adverse consequences 
of  the  earthquake  have  been  assessed  as  physical  capital  destruction,  reduced  human 
capital accumulation and risk of brain drain, as well as reduced social capital and risk of 

1 This case study was researched and originally drafted by Marzia Legnini, Claudia Romano and 
Andrea Gramillano of t33, and edited and revised by the EPRC Core Team.  
2 Application for EU Solidarity Fund Italy – Earthquakes May 2012 (2012IT16SPO002). 
3 Barone G, Benni F, Brasili C and Mocetti S (2013) Una stima degli effetti economici di breve 
periodo del terremoto in Emilia Romagna, Politica economica – 2/2013 August version. 

3 

                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

corruption  in  the  use  of  public  resources.4.  However,  there  is  also  evidence  of 
reconstruction representing an opportunity for public investment to improve private and 
public  infrastructure  and  goods  and  to  some  extent  to  stimulate  innovation  and 
cooperation.5 Researchers consider that institutional quality is the main determinant of the 
effectiveness of reconstruction at regional and local levels.6 

3.  OVERVIEW OF EUSF INTERVENTION 

The Italian authorities submitted an application to the Commission within 10 weeks of the 
date of the first earthquake, requesting financial assistance from the EUSF (see Table 1). 
In the application, the Italian authorities estimated the total direct damage at EUR 13.274 
billion.7  As  the  initial  estimated  damage  was  more  than  3.5  times  the  major  disaster 
threshold applicable to Italy in 2012 (EUR 3.607 billion), the application was assessed as 
a major disaster.  

Table 1: Timeline of the EUSF intervention 

Intervention stage 

Disaster occurrence 

Application submission 

Date of proposal 

Date of EP and Council Decision 

Commission Decision 

Implementation agreement 

Payment date  

Implementation period end  

Implementation report due  

Extension granted until 

Implementation report received 

Closure note date 

Source: DG REGIO, 2018. 

Date 

20/05/2012 

27/07/2012 

19/09/2012 

21/11/2012 

03/12/2012 

06/12/2012 

19/12/2012 

19/12/2013 

19/06/2013 

19/12/2014 

18/12/2014 

21/10/2015 

In the application, eligible costs were estimated as EUR 714.673 million, calculated as 5.38 
percent  of  total  direct  damage.  Most  of  the  estimated  eligible  costs  (69  percent)  were 
intially accounted for by temporary accommodation. This breakdown of damage  evolved 
during the subsequent months as more accurate assessments became available, leading 
to  a  significant  increase  in  the  proportion  of  costs  allocated  to  the  restoration  of 
infrastructure in the final version of the application considered for award (see  Table 2). 

4  Signorini L F (2017) Terremoti, economici e no Intervento conclusivo del Vice Direttore Generale 
della Banca d’Italia, Bank of Italy. 
5 See paper by Pagliacci F and Bertolini P (2019) Il terremoto del 2012 in Emilia: specificità del 
settore agro-alimentare e ruolo della cooperazione nell’emergenza, https://tinyurl.com/yaaue47x  
6 Barone G and Mocetti S (2014) Natural disasters, growth and institutions: a tale of two 
earthquakes, Bank of Italy Working Paper, No. 949, January 2014. Oliva S, Lazzeretti L and 
Bianchi M (2018) Natural disaster and recovery processes in Italy. Do Communities shape 
resilience?’ Paper to the RSA European Conference, Lugano, June 2018.  
7 Summary Application form to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) from the 
Italian National Civil Protection Department in cooperation with Emilia-Romagna Region, 
Lombardia Region and Veneto Region. 

4 

                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

The Commission decided on 19 September 2012 to grant financial aid to Italy following its 
assessment of the application, and proposed a financial contribution of EUR 670.2 million, 
based on the application of its methodology for EUSF aid.8 

Table 2: EUSF granted and reported (EUR millions) 

Categories of damage 

Infrastructure restoration 

Temporary accommodation 

Preventative infrastructure 

Clean-up of disaster area 

Total 

EUSF awarded 

EUSF reported 

292.4 

337.8 

28.5 

11.5 

670.2 

318.8 

324 

42.8 

14.9 

700.5 

Source: DG REGIO, 2018.  
Note: breakdown by category is based on applicant estimates of eligible operations. 

The  European  Parliament  and  Council  accepted  the  proposed  budget  on  21  November 
2012.  In  preparing  the  subsequent  implementation  agreement,  the  allocations  to 
categories  of  damage  were  amended  to  increase  the  proportion  of  funding  for 
infrastructure restoration (44 percent of the budget) reducing the allocation for temporary 
accommodation to 50 percent. Following the Commission Decision of  3 December 2012 
and  the  signing  of  the  implementation  agreement  on  6  December,  the  financial 
contribution was paid to the Italian authorities on 19 December 2012.9   

In  the  course  of  implementing  the  EUSF  support,  there  were  further  small  shifts  in  the 
balance of funding, with increased spending on restoring infrastructure and investment in 
preventative infrastructure and slightly less on temporary accommodation than planned in 
the implementing agreement (but within the same overall budget).  

Despite the relatively smooth implementation of administrative processes, there was an 
extension of the deadline for delivering the implementation report,  which was originally 
due  by  June  2014,  following  a  request  by  the  Italian  authorities.10  The  implementation 
report was submitted with a short delay, agreed with the Commission, at the end of 2014, 
and following a satisfactory audit, closure was recorded on 21 October 2015. 

Comparison  of  the  timetable  for  this  case  with  other  EUSF  cases11  confirms  that  the 
administrative processes for the case were conducted speedily. The time period between 
the ocurrence of the disaster and the payment of aid was (at 30 weeks) significantly less 
than the average of all EUSF earthquake cases (57.4 weeks) and the average for all EUSF 
cases  in  Italy  (63  weeks)  (see  Table  3).  Much  of  this  was  due  to  a  relatively  quick 
submission  of  the  application  by  the  Italian  authorities  and  then  rapid  Commission 
assessment  compared  to  other  disasters;  the  time  taken  for  the  EP  and  Council 

8 European Commission (2012) Communication from the Commission on the application for the 
European Solidarity Fund financial aid presented by Italy relating to the series of earthquakes in 
Italy of May 2012, Brussels, 19.9.2012, C(2012) 6458 final. 
9 DG Regio (2015) Closure of the EU Solidarity Fund intervention in relation to the earthquakes in 
the regions of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto of 2012 - CCI 2012IT16SPO002 – Note to 
File, Ref. Ares(2015)4609480 - 27/10/2015. 
10 Further details are provided in Section 5.4.5 below. 
11 Based on analysis of all EUSF cases undertaken for the Interim Report. 

5 

 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

assessment/approval  was  broadly  the  same  as  for  other  disasters.   Administrative 
efficiency also characterised the closure process; no updates to the Implementation Report 
were requested, and the closure period at (43.9 weeks) was around 40 percent shorter 
than the average for all earthquake cases and some 45 percent shorter than the average 
for all Italian EUSF cases. 

Table 3: Comparison of administration of the case study with other EUSF cases 

Indicators 

Submission of application 
relative to deadline 
Application completion 
duration 
Commission assessment 
duration 
EP & EC assessment duration 
Time between disaster 
occurrence and payment of aid 
to beneficiary country 
Submission of IR in relation to 
deadline 
Duration of updates to 
implementation report 
Duration of closure process 

Case 
study : 
IT91 
(weeks) 

-0.3 

9.7 

7.7 

9 

30 

-0.14 

: 

43.9 

Average of all 
other 
earthquakes 
(weeks) (n=7) 

Average of all IT 
interventions 
(weeks) (n=9) 

: 

13 

15.8 

10.6 

53.5 

3.3 

29.4 

63.1 

: 

16.5 

15.9 

10.7 

59.4 

6.3 

15.7 

71.2 

Source: DG REGIO, 2018. 
*Initial deadline for IR submission was June 2014, extension was granted and IR was submitted in 
December 2014. 

4.  IMPLEMENTATION OF EUSF 

The following sections describe the implementation of EUSF in more  detail covering the 
institutional  context,  application/submission,  evaluation/assessment  and  approval, 
implementation, closure, and publicity and visibility. 

4.1 

Institutional context 

In the immediate aftermath of the first major earthquake, the Italian Council of Ministers 
declared a state of emergency for 60 days for the Provinces of Modena, Ferrara, Bologna 
(Emilia-Romagna) and Mantova (Lombardia).  

The coordination of the response was entrusted to the Head of the National Civil Protection 
Department  who  was  authorised  to  manage  the  emergency  procedures,  including 
submitting the EUSF application. 

The first measure was the Decree by the Head of the National Civil Protection Department, 
number 1 issued on 22 May, aiming to: 

  appoint the Director of the Regional Civil Protection Agency for Emilia-Romagna, 

and the Director-General of the Civil Protection Directorate local police and 
security for Lombardia, as responsible persons for assisting the population in the 
first aid activities; 

6 

Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

  establish the necessary connection between the aforementioned Directors, the 

mayors of the municipalities hit by the earthquake and the coordination 
structures to be established at territorial level; 

  define the activities of assistance to the population (e.g. meals, temporary 

accommodation, transport and checks on buildings safety standards, cleaning 
affected areas, etc.); 

 

classify urgent interventions enabling the return of the population to habitable 
housing, safeguarding public safety and guaranteeing assistance operations; and 

  allocate the first EUR 10 million to these initial response activities. 

The same Decree established the Command and Control Direction (Di.Coma.C.)  - at the 
premises  of  the  Regional  Civil  Protection  Agency  in  Emilia-Romagna,  managed  by  the 
National Civil Protection Department in cooperation with the regional administrations - to 
coordinate all emergency operations and act as a structure connecting the involved actors 
(at national, regional and local levels) and to ensure a homogeneous support throughout 
the  affected  areas.  Moreover,  this  measure  foresaw  that  the  coordination  of  assistance 
activities  would  be  transferred  to  the  Presidents  of  the  Regions  of  Emilia-Romagna  and 
Lombardia as soon as the state of emergency ended. After the subsequent earthquake of 
29  May,  which  expanded  the  seismic  crater  area,  the  same  state  of  emergency  was 
extended to the province of Rovigo (Veneto region). 

By 2 August, the Di.Coma.C ceased its functions,12 and the coordination of activities, at 
territorial  level,  was  delegated  to  the  Presidents  of  the  Regions  of  Emilia-Romagna, 
Lombardia and Veneto as Delegate Commissioners in charge of managing the remaining 
emergency issues and the following reconstruction, according to the legislative decree n. 
74/2012 (then converted into law no.122/2012). 

Each Region adopted its own organisational model, under the coordination of the Delegate 
Commissioner  structures  and  their  technical  personnel,  with  the  twofold  objective:  (i) 
better cope with their communities’ specific needs, including through the involvement of 
volunteers and local administrations; and (ii) guarantee the proper support to mayors of 
affected municipalities. 

The  roles  of  the  institutions  sending  the  application,  key  implementing  authorities,  and 
key stakeholders are set out in Table 4.  

Table 4: Institutional arrangements for the EUSF intervention 

Institution sending application 

Organization name 

Role 

Italian National Civil 
Protection Department 

Overall coordination of the 
first emergency activities:  

in cooperation with: 

- evaluation of damages,  

- Emilia-Romagna Region 

- Lombardia Region 

- Veneto Region 

- immediate restoration of 
working conditions of basic 
infrastructures, 

12 Decree of the Head of the National Civil Protection Department no. 15 of 1 August 2012. 

7 

 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

- support to the affected 
population through temporary 
accommodation and rescue 
services, 

- linkages between 
regional/local 
administrations. 

(I phase May – July 2012) 

Coordination of activities at 
regional level: 

  temporary 

accommodations for the 
population, 

  provisional buildings for 

public purposes, 
  restoring working 
conditions of basic 
infrastructures, 

  securing buildings and 

territories. 

Support in assisting the 
affected population. 

Key implementing authorities 

Organisation name 

  Italian National Civil Protection 

  National Civil Protection 

Department  

  (May-July 2012) Command and 

Control Direction (Di.Coma.C.)    

  Director of the Regional Civil 
Protection Agency for Emilia-
Romagna 

  Director of the Regional Civil 

Protection Agency for 
Lombardia 

  Director of the Regional Civil 
Protection Agency Veneto 
  President of Emilia-Romagna 

Region, Delegate 
Commissioner for 
reconstruction  

  President of Lombardia Region 
– Delegate Commissioner for 
reconstruction 

  President of Veneto Region – 
Delegate Commissioner for 
reconstruction 
  Municipalities 
Key stakeholders 

  Fire fighters 
  Volunteers 
  Other associations 

Department 
  Regional Civil 

Protection Agency 
Emilia-Romagna 

  Regional Civil 

Protection Agency 
Lombardia 
  Regional Civil 

Protection Agency 
Veneto 

  Region of Emilia- 

Romagna, Agency for 
reconstruction 

  Region of Lombardia, 

Structure of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
for reconstruction 
  Region of Veneto, 
Structure of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
for reconstruction 

Organization name: 

  Volunteers of the 
National Civil 
Protection 

  Italian Red Cross 

4.2  Application/submission phase 

Based  on  previous  experience,13  the  National  Civil  Protection  Department  managed  the 
phase of preparing and submitting the application for mobilising the EUSF during the period 
June/July 2012. 

In  line  with  EUSF  requirements,  the  application  included  an  accurate  direct  damage 
estimation  based  on  the  active  involvement  of  affected  local  and  national  public 
administrations and private entities. In particular, the damage and usability assessment 
was  coordinated  and  managed  by  the  National  Department,  in  cooperation  with  Emilia 

13 They refer to the earthquakes in the regions of Molise (2002) and Abruzzo (2009). 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto Regions, with a substantial technical support from other 
Regions,  Provinces,  Municipalities,  the  National  Fire  Service,  specialized  centres  and 
professional orders. 

The  assessment  was  carried  out  through  the  AeDES14  survey  form,  which  is  now  a 
standardised tool, along with its manual, according to the Decree of the President of the 
Council  of  Ministries  of  5  May  2011.  This  form  consists  of  nine  sections  and  contains 
identification, metrics, use, typological and damage data. The form is completed by the 
usability classification and the short-term countermeasures considered necessary to reuse 
the damaged buildings. 

As  highlighted  by  local  public  authorities  consulted  for  this  ex-post  evaluation,  the 
assessment  tools  and  technical  support  provided  by  the  National  Civil  Protection 
Department were valued and considered effective to quantify damage to public and private 
properties  as  well  as  to  the  territory,  during  a  very  difficult  and  chaotic  period.15  This 
enabled an optimal damage assessment and the application for mobilising the EUSF to be 
submitted in due time. 

As shown in Table 5 below, there was a strong consensus among interviewees, at all levels 
of administration that problems during the application phase were minimal. Interviewees 
expressing a neutral opinion on this theme were not directly involved in the application 
phase, managed by the National Department of Civil Protection, which provided technical 
support to local authorities in preparing the necessary documentation for the EUSF funding 
request. 

Given the National Department’s previous experience and use of standardized assessment 
tools,  the  overall  application/submission  phase  was  considered  to  have  been  smoothly 
implemented. 

14 Agibilità e Danno nell’Emergenza Sismica (Usability and Damage during Seismic Emergency).  
15 The exception is the interviewee from Veneto, who highlighted the difficulty in assessing less 
serious damages, although they considered the overall methodology to be efficient. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Table 5: Assessment of the application/submission phase 

Assessment of the 
application/submission 
phase 

National Department of Civil 
Protection 

Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia – 
Romagna 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Lombardia 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Veneto 

Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico (FE) 

Municipality of Poggio Rusco 
(MN) 

Municipality of Reggiolo (RE) 

Municipality of san Giacomo 
delle Segnate (MN) 

Municipality of San Giovanni 
del Dosso (MN) 

Italian Red Cross 

Prociv - Arci 

Straight-
forward 

Neutral 

Fairly 
complex 

Excessively 
complex 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

4.3  Appraisal/evaluation and approval phase 

The European Commission received the application on 27 July 2012, within the deadline 
of ten weeks after the first damage was recorded on 20 May 2012. 

The  evaluation  phase  was  undertaken  expeditiously,  and  the  Commission  services 
concluded  that,  taking  into  consideration  the  size  of  the  event  and  the  limited  time  to 
assess the damage, the methods used by the Italian authorities for estimating the different 
categories of damage were generally sufficiently detailed and plausible. On 19 September 
2012, the European Commission Communication approved the application to mobilise the 
EUSF aid, proposing to apply the percentages defining a major disaster according to the 
EUSF methodology and to grant the amount of EUR 670.2 million.16  

The  Decision  to  mobilise  the  EUSF  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  was 
signed on 21 November 2012. The same day, the President of the European Parliament 
signed the ‘Definitive adoption of the amending budget for the financial year 2012’. 

The final Communication of the European Commission granting the aid under the EUSF in 
favour  of  Italy  was  on  3  December  2012,  and  the  agreement  between  the  European 

16 European Commission (2012) op. cit.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Commission and the Italian Government was signed on 12 December 2012. The financial 
contribution was then remitted to the Italian State on 19 December, a total of 213 days 
after the disaster first struck.  

Overall,  the  evaluation/approval  phase  was  closed  in  due  time,  enabling  the  Italian 
Government,  through  the  National  Civil  Protection  Department,  to  ensure  a  prompt 
response to the affected population.  

The  research  found  a  general  consensus  among  interviewees  that  identified  problems 
related to the evaluation/approval phase were also minimal or limited (see Table 6).  

Table 6: Assessment of the appraisal/evaluation and approval phase 

Extent of problems in 
appraisal/evaluation 
and approval phase 

National Department of 
Civil Protection 

Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia 
- Romagna 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
of Lombardia 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
of Veneto 

Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico (FE) 

Municipality of Poggio 
Rusco (MN) 

Municipality of Reggiolo 
(RE) 

Municipality of san 
Giacomo delle Segnate 
(MN) 

Municipality of San 
Giovanni del Dosso 
(MN) 

Italian Red Cross 

Prociv - Arci 

Minimal 

Limited 

Moderate 

Significant  Excessive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

Likewise,  the  application/submission  phase,  exchanges  with  the  Commission  during  the 
appraisal/evaluation phase were managed by the National Department of Civil Protection, 
without encountering any problems and ensuring a regular communication to Regional and 
local administrations. 

4.4 

Implementation phase 

Following  the  Law  Decree  no.  74/2012  (then  converted  into  law  no.122/2012), 
competences for managing the implementation of the operations under the EUSF, as well 
as  the  overall  reconstruction,  were  delegated  to  Commissioners  at  regional  level,  who 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

provided  technical  support  to  the  mayors  of  the  affected  municipalities  to  deal  with 
implementation and reporting procedures. 

In line with EUSF requirements, support from the Fund was mainly used to cover expenses 
for: provisional works aimed at ensuring the restoration of the functions of local authorities 
and public utilities; removal of rubble; urgent actions; and assistance to the population, 
including  temporary  housing  provision  (setting  up  camps  and  use  of  existing  habitable 
buildings). 

Box 1: Illustrative examples of interventions under the EUSF 

Region of Emilia Romagna: EUSF-funded interventions for the immediate restoration of 
school facilities so as to allow the start of the 2012/2013 school year  

The total school population affected by the earthquake - considering all the schools for which the 
municipalities  reported  different  typologies  of  damages  -  amounted  to  about  63  thousand 
students. 

Around  1,041  schools  buildings  were  checked  and  classified  based  on  damage  levels:  (A  = 
accessible) 471 school buildings representing 45 perent of the total; (B/C = temporarily/partially 
accessible) 364 school buildings (35 percent); (D = unfit for structural risk) 160 school buildings 
(15 percent); (E = unavailable due to external risk) 46 school buildings representing four percent. 

A total of 524 schools were damaged representing 50 percent of the schools controlled by public 
authorities. 

Although the responsibility at local level was transferred to provinces and municipalities (for less 
damaged  schools  buildings),  the  Delegate  Commissioner  made  use  of  a  working  group 
coordinated by expert technicians with previous experience in the management of emergencies 
in the Marche-Umbria earthquakes of 1997 and Abruzzo in 2009. This activity allowed the regular 
performance of the school year, and in safe conditions, for several thousand students from the 
earthquake zones. 

EUSF co-financed interventions for damage classified as “A, B and C” comprised 275 out of more 
than 290 planned interventions, for a total value of EUR 17,966,017. “E” level schools (immediate 
repair of school buildings) comprisede 11 out of 24 planned interventions (EUR 1,906,556). 

Other interventions under the EUSF involved: 

  31  temporary  buildings  built  (EUR  61,263,620)  and  30  modular  prefabricated  schools  

purchased (EUR 22,389,328.35); 

  25 temporary gymnasiums (EU 21,957,551); 

  72 authorized interventions of urbanization works (EUR 19,204,908); 

  14 (out of 15) temporary alternative solutions implemented for schools (rents, purchase 

of furniture, etc.) at a cost of EUR 3,244,371. 

The remaining interventions were financed through national and regional resources. 

In  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  interviewees  for  this  case  study,  contributions  under  the 
EUSF  were  delivered  quickly.  Funds  were  made  available  to  the  national  budget  in 
December 2012, seven months after the seismic event, enabling local authorities to plan 
emergency interventions (notwithstanding domestic delays in transferring resources from 
the State to regional accounts and providing actual funds for the local authorities). 

As  far  as  the  implementation  phase  is  concerned,  most  of  the  interviewees  stated  that 
they encountered limited (45 percent) or moderate (27 percent) problems linked to the 

12 

 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

complexity  of  EUSF  implementing  procedures.  Both  eligibility  criteria  and  reporting 
requirements were clear and proportionate to the territories’ needs.  

On the other hand, deadlines foreseen for the disbursement and reporting of expenditure 
– all interventions had to be completed by 19 December 2013 - was perceived as extremely 
tight  and  challenging,  considering  the  severity  and  the  exceptional  nature  of  the  post-
earthquake context along with the timing foreseen by the national procurement code. The 
tightness of the timetable was highlighted as a critical issue of the EUSF contribution by 
the  Emilia-Romagna  and  Lombardia  regions  in  their  assessment  of  strengths  and 
weaknesses as part of the grant’s final implementation report.17  Nonetheless, all eligible 
expenses were reported within the deadlines agreed with the Commission for EUSF final 
reporting.  

Most  interviewees  noted  the  importance  of  the  approval  of  the  Legislative  Decree  no. 
59/2012 of 15 May 2012, modifying the modalities of intervention by  the National Civil 
Protection  Department,  and  the  enactment  of  the  Law  Decree  no.74  of  6  June  2012, 
regarding urgent interventions to support the affected populations.  

In  Emilia-Romagna,  the  Regional  Administration  and  the  affected  municipalities  were 
considered  to  have  cooperated  in  close  synergy,  ensuring  the  closure  of  the  financed 
operations and the related reporting on time. In the absence of a specific legal basis, the 
Emilia-Romagna  Regional  Administration  decided  to  adopt  the  same  approach  and  the 
same operating methods as for the management of the Structural Funds, also by adopting 
its own audit body, which was entrusted to an external company. This made it possible to 
guarantee the transparency of implementation and efficient management of the reporting 
phase. 

Some initial difficulties were met in Lombardia, since the Regional Court of Auditors raised 
a  doubt  about  its  legitimacy  to  evaluate  the  EUSF  resource  utilisation  plan,  leading  to 
delays and making it more challenging to respect the reporting schedule.18 To overcome 
this impasse, the Region advanced its own funds, enabling the start of operations and the 
acceleration  in  implementation,  with  great  efforts  by  all  the  actors  involved.  These 
difficulties have been confirmed by the two interviewed municipalities in the Province of 
Mantova. 

In Veneto, the 21, mostly small, municipalities in the province of Rovigo affected by the 
earthquake recorded less serious damage than those in Emilia-Romagna and Lombardia. 
However, the damages and thus the damage assessment phase were rather fragmented. 
This  fragmentation,  the  lack  of  human  resources  in  the  municipalities  involved  and  the 
rather unstructured nature of the rules derived from the existing institutional set-up had 
some negative repercussions on the initial use of resources under the EUSF.19  

17 Protezione Civile, Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia e Regione del Veneto (no date) 
‘Relazione di esecuzione delle spese sostenute a valere sul contributo del Fondo di Solidarietà 
dell’Unione Europea (FSUE) per il terremoto del maggio 2012. C(2012) 9342 final, pp. 163-164 
18 Protezione Civile, Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia e Regione del Veneto (no date) 
op. cit., p. 164. The issue raised by the regional Court of Auditors delayed the deployment of the 
resources by months, as the President of the Region was only able to sign off the EUSF resources 
utilization plan only in June 2013 (Ordinance no. 22 of 24 June 2013).  
19 Protezione Civile, Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia e Regione del Veneto (no date) 
Op. Cit., p. 164. 

13 

                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Nonetheless, the Veneto Region had promptly prepared an effective organizational model, 
based on the experience of the 2010 flood and which ensured the active involvement of 
mayors. This allowed the complexities associated with the assessment procedures to be 
overcome. In particular, the Regional Administration supported all municipalities through 
the provision of administrative guidance/models for monitoring activities and organizing 
operational  meetings  during  the  whole  implementation  phase.  This  helped  to  overcome 
the  lack  of  technical  personnel in  the  affected  area,  characterized  by  small  or  medium-
sized towns without the specific skills needed to deal with emergency procedures. 

The  extent  of  problems  encountered  by  interviewees  during  the  implementation  phase, 
showing the different point of views of the actors consulted are summarised in Table 7.  

Table 7: Assessment of the implementation phase 

Extent of problems in 
implementation 
phase 

National Department of 
Civil Protection 

Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia 
- Romagna 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
of Lombardia 

Representative of the 
Delegate Commissioner 
of Veneto 

Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico  

Municipality of Poggio 
Rusco  

Municipality of Reggiolo  

Municipality of san 
Giacomo delle Segnate  

Municipality of San 
Giovanni del Dosso  

Italian Red Cross 

Prociv - Arci 

Minimal 

Limited 

Moderate 

Significant  Excessive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

Overall,  the  problems  with  implementation  can  be  summarised  as  being  limited  to 
moderate.  The  Regional  Administrations  agreed  that  the  problems  met  during 
implementation  were  mainly  due  to  external  factors  (emergency  conditions,  timing 
foreseen  by  public  procurement  legislation,  lack  of  technical  personnel  at  municipality 
level,  etc.)20  more  than  the  EUSF  procedures  themselves,  which  were  considered 
reasonably clear, notwithstanding the tight timelines for reporting expenses. On the other 

20 See Section 4 (Factors influencing the implementation of the EUSF support) below. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

hand,  municipalities  were  more  likely  to  consider  them  as  burdensome  due  to  time 
pressures for dealing with unfamiliar administrative procedures. 

4.5 

Closure 

Time constraints and administrative procedures required under national legislation were 
the main factors influencing the closure of interventions in the view of interviewees (see 
Table 8), especially the reporting of expenses for which the European Commission allowed 
an additional six months, postponing the final deadline. 

The implementation report  was originally due by June 2014 but, following a request by 
the  Italian  authorities,  the  Commission  accepted  an  extension  of  the  deadline  for 
submission of the implementation report and statement of validity. These documents were 
finally received by the Commission on 18 December 2014. Despite the relatively smooth 
implementation of administrative processes, interviewees noted that the main challenge 
of closing procedures under the EUSF was the lack of flexibility. Specifically, the procedures 
are  not  considered  to  allow  sufficient  time  for  strict  adherence  to  public  procurement 
procedures  or  the  time  needed  for  the  acquisition  of  opinions  and  authorisations  for 
interventions in restricted buildings. On the other hand, the interviewed stakeholders did 
not consider the information requested to be particularly complex. 

Moreover,  the  aforementioned  delays  in  starting  operations,  along  with  administrative 
difficulties associated with the post-earthquake situation, had repercussions in the closure 
phase. For some municipalities, it was hard to collect invoices by service providers in due 
time.  Nonetheless, the joint effort of regional administrations and municipalities enabled 
interventions to be finalised together with the related reporting. 

On 31 July 2015 (ARES 3228842), the audit unit sent its conclusions and analysis stating 
that  the  statement  of  validity  could  be  accepted  and  that  the  closure  could  proceed. 
Following  the  inter-service  consultation,  launched  on  19  August  2015,  and  the  OLAF 
consultation, which did not report any irregularities, on 21 October 2015 (ARES 4460449), 
a  closure  letter  was  sent  to  the  Italian  authorities  stating  that  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund 
intervention was closed.21 

21 European Commission - Closure Note to File (Ref. Ares(2015)4609480 - 27/10/2015). See also 
section 3 ‘Overview of EUSF intervention’ of this case study report. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Table 8: Assessment of closure procedures 

Minimal 

Moderate 

Excessive 

Bureaucracy involved 

Complexity of information demanded  

X 

Time constraints 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

4.6 

Publicity and visibility 

X 

X 

In line with EUSF requirements, efforts were made to communicate the implementation 
and impacts of the EUSF support. 

From its establishment, the Di.Coma.C. activated different information and communication 
channels, managing relations with both national and local media through press releases, 
press  reviews,  organization  of  interviews  and  support  to  journalists.  The  Department's 
website was frequently updated, contributing to informing citizens on  the emergency in 
progress, on the seismic risk and on the self-protection rules to be adopted in case of a 
further earthquake. 

Among specific communication activities, it is worth mentioning the initiative ‘Terremoto, 
Parliamone  Insieme’  (Earthquake,  let’s  talk  about  it)  promoted  by  the  National  Civil 
Protection  Department,  together  with  the  INGV  (National  Institute  of  Geophysics  and 
Volcanology),  in  collaboration  with  the  University  of  Seismic  Engineering  Laboratory 
Network and in agreement with the Emilia–Romagna Region, the local administrations and 
the components of the local civil protection system. The initiative foresaw the organization 
of 32 public meetings, during the months of June, July and August 2012, on seismicity, 
assistance,  emotional  impact  of  events  as  well  as  on  the  appropriate  measures  to  deal 
with problems linked to the emergency.22  

During implementation, flags and EU logos were used to signal works and services financed 
through  the  EUSF.  Also,  extensive  coverage  of  both  national  and  European  financial 
support through the media was ensured and meetings with stakeholders and citizens were 
organized.  In  this  regard,  a  further  initiative  worth  mentioning  is  the  online  platform 
‘Openricostruzione’ promoted by the Emilia-Romagna Region. While not specific to EUSF 
it provided up-to-date information on the actual state of play of reconstruction, showing 
quotas of public and private financial resources and donations devoted to infrastructures, 
buildings and economic activities in the affected areas after the EUSF support.23 Specific 
information (public notices and following interventions) under the EUSF can be found in 
the archive of the Region’s institutional website.24 Likewise, the Region of Lombardia has 
set up an institutional website dedicated to the 2012 earthquake.25  

Notwithstanding these efforts, the common opinion of the interviewees is that the Fund is 
mainly  known  by  technical  staff  and  all  the  other  actors  directly  involved  in  the 

22 ‘Relazione di esecuzione delle spese sostenute a valere sul Fondo di Solidarietà Europeo (FSUE) 
per il terremoto del maggio 2012’, C(2012), 9342 final, p. 16 
23 https://openricostruzione.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ . 
24 https://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/solr_search?query=FSUE . 
25 http://www.sismamantova.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/site/sisma-mantova-2012 . 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

implementation of the interventions, while the awareness of citizens is limited. This was 
attributed  to  the  nature  of  the  eligible  interventions,  covering  short-term  services  to 
population,  temporary  housing  and  provisional  works  rather  than  permanent  and  more 
tangible  infrastructure  investments.  Further,  the  combined  use  of  multiple  funds  (EU, 
national, local, voluntary) overshadowed the use of EUSF specifically. 

The  limited  knowledge  on  the  EUSF  support  is  also  evident  from  the  Media  Survey 
conducted for this evaluation. Notwithstanding the high coverage of 2012 earthquakes by 
national  media,  only  22  articles  were  identified  as  relevant  to  the  EUSF.  These  articles 
were published in six main media newspapers, which are among the most popular websites 
visited in the Italian web according to Alexa rankings. 

As  for  content  and  sentiment  analysis,  nine  articles  frame  the  EUSF  support  positively, 
considering it as a clear evidence of EU solidarity and the fundamental values on which 
the  EU  is  founded,  despite  the  beaurocracy  involved  for  applying  for  the  Fund  support 
highlighted by one of them. 

Neutral  framing  of  the  EUSF  is  contained  in  four  articles  that  were  published  in  two 
different media sources mentioning the EUSF as another source of funding among others, 
predominantly national, supporting the restructuring efforts in the three affected regions.   

The  remaining articles adopted a negative framing of the  EUSF, mainly focusing on the 
position of five EU Member States that objected to the granting of aid towards Italy.26 

5.  FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUSF SUPPORT 

The most important factors influencing the implementation of EUSF support are considered 
to be governance, economic resources, public procurement requirements and the time for 
funding to be transferred to the regions.  The roles/actions of specific institutions and local 
administrative factors were also influential. A summary of the influences of specific factors 
based on responses by interviewees at different levels is provided in Table 9. 

  Governance.  The  execution  of  financed  operations  was  partly  conditioned  by  the 
tripartite management of the Fund by the three affected regions, each responsible 
for the territories under its jurisdiction, which led to some discrepancies during the 
implementation  phase  as  a  whole.  Each  regional  administration  adopted  its  own 
organisational  structure  with  its  own  rules  and  dealt  with  different  types  of 
problems  linked  to  the  gravity  of  the  damages.  While  this  governance  model 
ensured  a  greater  focus  on  the  territorial  needs,  it  also  led  to  heterogeneous 
implementation procedures. All in all, the interviewees considered that the three 
models  succeeded  –  albeit  operating  differently  -  in  involving  the  affected 
municipalities  and  in  supporting  them  in  assessing  damages,  planning  and 
implementing interventions.  

 

Institutional factors. They had a moderate influence. Relations with the Commission 
were managed by the National Department of Civil Protection, which supported the 
involved  Regional  Administrations  in  their  efforts  to  comply  with  EUSF 
requirements. The only event that could jeopardize the proper implementation of 
the EUSF support was limited to Lombardia where the Regional Court of Auditors 

26 Further details are provided in the Media Survey published as a separate report. 

17 

                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

raised a legitimacy doubt slowing down the initial implementation of the activities. 
Nonetheless, this was overcome when the Region advanced its own funds, enabling 
interventions to be closed in due time.  

  Economic resources. Most of the interviewees highlighted that the EUSF financing 
was made available in a quick way, allowing local authorities to respond promptly 
to their communities’ needs.  

  Public procurement requirements. The timing of reporting was heavily influenced 

by the requirements of the public procurement code. 

  Time needed for the transfer of funding from the State to the regional accounts. 
The transfer of State resources substantially delayed the start of reimbursement of 
subnational  authorities  from  the  Fund,  partly  because  EU  resources  became 
available in December 2012, coinciding with a period of annual closure of domestic 
financial statements.  

  Lack  of  specific  competences  for  managing  an  emergency  at  municipal  level. 
Especially  in  small  municipalities,  the  lack  of  specialised  personnel,  capable  of 
carrying out damage assessments rapidly and in accordance with the procedures 
established by the EUSF. In this regard, the Civil Protection was actively involved 
in the verification of damages and in voluntary work for the  affected  population, 
supporting  local  authorities  to  deal  with  both  the  damage  assessment  and  the 
subsequent implementation of operations. 

Table 9: Assessment of factors influencing EUSF implementation 

Factor 

No 

influence 

Slight 
influence 

Moderate 
influence 

Highly 
influential 

Most influence 

Governance 

Institutional factors  

Economic resources 

Accountability 

X 

Public procurement 
requirements 

Time needed for the 
transfer of funding 
from the State to the  
regional accounts  

Lack of specific 
competences for 
managing emergency 
at municipal level 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

6.  ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND COST 

Overall, the interviews with public authorities and main stakeholders did not highlight any 
widespread  administrative  burden  (with  some  limited  exceptions)  affecting  the 
management and implementation of the EUSF support (see Table 10).   

Regarding the relationships between the institutions and stakeholders: 

 

relationships with the European Commission were managed, at the National level, 
by the Department of Civil Protection and by the involved Regional Administrations 
based  on  a  perceived  “very  collaborative  approach”  and  a  mutual  exchange  of 
information; and 

 

the relationship between the Regions and the affected municipalities were judged 
by all the consulted stakeholders as “good” and “productive”. 

Specifically, five interviewees stated that they encountered minimal or limited problems 
linked to administrative procedures or in the relations with other public authorities across 
all phases of the intervention.  

Those considering administrative burdens as moderate (four interviewees) mainly refer to 
the  decision  to  provide  for  three  Delegate  Commissioners  (a  national  decision,  not  one 
imposed by the EU), which led to a certain lack of homogeneity in implementation, since 
different measures have been taken to respond to the same type of needs. This is definitely 
considered  a  ‘risk  factor’  because  contiguous  Regional  Administrations  have  applied 
different  solutions  to  tackle  common  problems.  Some  interviewees  suggested  a  single 
structure would probably have ensured a greater uniformity in the implementation phase. 

The  two  municipalities  rating  administrative  burdens  as  significant  refer  to  the  time 
schedule for reporting, considered the main internal factor influencing implementation. 

Table 10: Assessment of administrative burdens 

Administrative burdens 
National Department of Civil 
Protection 
Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia - 
Romagna 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Lombardia 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Veneto 
Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico (FE) 
Municipality of Poggio Rusco  
Municipality of Reggiolo (RE) 
Municipality of San Giacomo 
delle Segnate (MN) 
Municipality of San Giovanni 
del Dosso (MN) 
Italian Red Cross 
Prociv - Arci 

Minimal  Limited  Moderate  Significant  Excessive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

A similar conclusion applies to the assessment of administrative costs (see Table 11). The 
interviewees considered that administrative costs had a minimal (three interviewees) or a 
limited (eight interviewees) effect on the implementation of interventions under the EUSF. 

The  costs  were  considered  adequate  and  proportionate,  considering  the  scale  of  the 
financial  contribution.  Furthermore,  the  regional  administrations  ensured  a  continuous 
monitoring of the use of funds, including through consultations with other local authorities 
(for  example,  the  National  Association  of  Builders,  ANCE,  Chambers  of  Commerce,  and 
professional orders), and their compliance with indicative costs set at regional level. 

Table 11: Assessment of administrative costs 

Administrative costs 
National Department of Civil 
Protection 
Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia - 
Romagna 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Lombardia 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Veneto 
Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico (FE) 
Municipality of Poggio Rusco 
(MN) 
Municipality of Reggiolo (RE) 
Municipality of San Giacomo 
delle Segnate (MN) 
Municipality of San Giovanni 
del Dosso (MN) 
Italian Red Cross 
Prociv - Arci 

Minimal 
X 

Limited  Moderate 

Significant 

Excessive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

7.  RELEVANCE OF EUSF SUPPORT 

As the largest ever EUSF intervention, the support for the recovery from the earthquakes 
in  Emilia-Romagna,  Lombardia  and  Veneto,  was  substrantial  and  important  for  the 
recovery from the disaster.  

  Appropriateness to specific local needs. The analysis confirmed the appropriateness 
of EUSF support to the recovery needs of the local community in the aftermath of 
the  earthquake.  The  total  final  resources,  amounting  to  EUR671  million,  were 
dedicated to addressing the most urgent needs: immediate restoration to working 
order  of  infrastructure;  providing  temporary  accommodation  and  funding  rescue 
services to meet the urgent needs of the population concerned; immediate securing 
of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection of the cultural 
heritage; immediate cleaning up of disaster-stricken areas, including natural zones. 
The appropriateness of EUSF support is confirmed by the wide consensus among 
interviewees that theEUSF support was a key additional resource. It enabled local 
authorities to finance provisional works and assistance to the involved communities 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

in the months after the calamitous event, responding to the citizens’ and territories’ 
specific needs. 

  Support to local authorities facing financial constraints. Most interviewees agreed 
that  EUSF  support  was  crucial  for  the  municipalities  involved  facing  financial 
constraints  and  without  adequate  financial  and  human  resources  to  address  the 
new  challenges  posed  by  the  earthquake.  Indeed,  financing  was  received  very 
quickly (compared to other national and EU funds) enabling municipalities to cover 
expenses  made  in  the  aftermath  of  the  earthquake  and  to  use  other  financial 
resources (national, regional, local) for subsequent stages of reconstruction.  ERDF 
and  EAFRD  interventions  supported  investments  and  modernisation  of  physical 
assets, protection of territorial endowments and anti-seismic adaptation measures, 
with  a  different  approach,  timing  and  procedures  from  EUSF.  The  most  relevant 
ERDF  and  EAFRD  interventions  have  regarded  Emilia-Romagna.  No  specific 
intervention has been mentioned nor reported in the Annual Implementation Report 
2015 of the Rural Development Programme and in the Final Implementation Report 
of the ERDF Regional Operational Programme. 

In  Emilia  Romagna,  the  regional  rural  programme  contributed  to  support  the 
modernisation  of  agricultural  holdings  (measure  121),  the  restoration  of 
agricultural  assets  (e.g.  temporary  hangars,  machineries)  and  prevention.  In 
Lombardy,  the  sub-measure  125A  supported  water  management  and  territorial 
protection also covering areas hit by the earthquake. In Emilia Romagna, the ERDF 
Regional  Operational  Programme  supported  a  wide  set  of 
interventions 
encompassing: 

  Concorso  L’Europa  è  qui  organised  in  Mirandola  involving  the  students  of 

the Galilei Institute reconstructed after the earthquake; 

  Activity I.1.1 supported the creation of the laboratory of biomedical sector 

in Mirandola; 

for 

  Activity II.2.1 with 192 investment projects for about EUR 22 million (new 
areas 
and 
commercialisation, innovations), out of 1007 eligible applications (those not 
funded  by  ERDF  were  covered  by  the  resources  of  the  Delegate 
Commissioner);  

investments, 

production 

activities, 

business 

  Activity  IV.3.1  and  IV.3.2  supporting  the  creation  of  areas  for  economic 
activities and services and the restarting of business activities (six out of 20 
economic areas and 733 out of 850 business restarts were achieved at the 
end of 2015. 

8.  ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENTS 

8.1  Operational achievements 

The  EUSF  succeeded  in  achieving  the  operational  objectives  based  on  the  damage 
assessment and given the needs of the affected populations (see Table 12). 

21 

Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

As  summarised  in  the  table  below,  most  resources  were  used  in  the  restoration  of 
infrastructure to working order in all of the three regions hit by the earthquakes so as to 
guarantee fundamental services to citizens. 

Temporary accommodation and rescue for population were highly significant, especially in 
Emilia-Romagna, which registered the most destructive damages and number of injuries 
and  deaths.  In  this  regard,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  approach  of  the  Emilia-Romagna 
favour  of 
construction  of 
Region  was 
reconstruction/redevelopment of existing buildings. 

to  avoid 

towns’ 

‘new 

the 

in 

The  resources  invested  in  securing  of  infrastructure  and  cultural  heritage  can  be 
considered of moderate significance representing a relatively minor percent of the whole 
support under the EUSF. A still smaller amount of resources was used for the immediate 
cleaning up of the disaster areas and can therefore be considered of less significance. 

Table 12: Assessment of operational achievements 

Activity 

Not 
significant 

Limited 
significance 

Moderate 
significance 

High 
significance 

Most 
significance 

Restoration of 
infrastructure to 
working order  
Temporary 
accommodation 
& rescue for 
population  
Securing of 
preventative 
infrastructure & 
cult. heritage  
Immediate 
clean-up of 
disaster areas  

X 

X 

X 

X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

Most interviewees considered that the EUSF achieved the expected results, facilitating the 
restoration of services of pivotal importance for the affected communities, in a short time 
and in an extreme emergency situation, thereby allowing other resources to be devoted 
to reconstruction. A further material result was that the EUSF succeeded in demonstrating 
the solidarity of EU, which was primarily perceived by public institutions and technical staff 
directly involved in the implementation of supported operations. 

8.2  Added value 

The added value of the EUSF support is regarded as primarily in the economic and political 
sphere, although there are also important aspects of policy, operational and learning added 
value (see Table 12).  

  Economic added value. The EUSF was considered most useful for providing financial 
resources, mainly for local public authorities in an emergency situation and within 
a relatively short time frame. For this reason, most interviewees agreed that the 
EUSF was a ‘breath of oxygen’ for the municipalities involved. It also ensured clear 
and flexible eligibility criteria to include a wide range of emergency interventions 
and  implementing  procedures.  The  resources  were  totally  spent,  and  the  tight 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

deadlines for implementation forced all the actors involved to close interventions 
quickly (unlike other domestic interventions still in progress), respecting the logic 
and the goals of the EUSF as an additional fund for managing emergencies. Overall, 
the  EUSF  allowed  the  prompt  reactivation  of  public  services  of  fundamental 
importance for the local community. 

  Political added value. Interviewees agreed that the political added value of the EUSF 
is represented by its capacity to increase awareness of EU solidarity, at least among 
local administrators and technicians involved in the operations. At a time when EU 
solidarity was under pressure in Italy because of the demands of fiscal discipline, 
interviewees argued that this experience broadened awareness of the existence of 
a  positive  narrative  about  the  EU.  Specifically,  by  deploying  the  EUSF  as  a 
mechanism  for  alleviating  the  consequences  of  a  natural  disaster,  the  funds 
enabled  the  affected  regions  to  cope  better  with  the  needs  of  the  territory  in 
emergency conditions. 

  Policy,  operational  and  learning  added  value.  Based  on  its  previous  experiences 
(especially the earthquake in L’Aquila in 2009), the Department of Civil Protection 
had  a  set  of  tested  methods  and  tools  which  were  successfully  used  both  for 
assessing damages and implementation. This has led to both an efficient use of the 
EUSF support and a better knowledge on how to cope with emergency conditions. 
Moreover, at local level, authorities in charge of assessing the damage assessment 
could  benefit  from  the  useful  and  effective  support  of  the  Department  of  Civil 
Protection, following an already tested methodology with its guidelines and tools. 
Some fine tuning was needed, but without jeopardizing the proper implementation 
of the supported operations. In the interviewees’ opinions, the EUSF had a strong, 
positive impact on the local authorities involved, guaranteeing the timely financial 
contribution  and 
implementation, 
facilitating  efficient  organisation  of  the 
notwithstanding the complications arising in the reporting of expenses. 

Table 13: Assessment of added value 

Not 
significant 

Limited 
significance 

Moderate 
significance 

High 
significance 

Most 
significance 

Added   
value 

Economic  

Political 

Policy 

Operational  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Learning 
 Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

9.  SYNERGIES AND COMPLEMENTARITY WITH ESIF 

Analysis of the synergies and complementarity between EUSF and ERDF/EAFRD show the 
different  approaches  of  the  funding  sources.  Overall,  ERDF  and  EAFRD  interventions 
supported  investments  and  modernisation  of  physical  assets,  protection  of  territorial 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

endowments  and  anti-seismic  adaptation  measures,  with  a  different  approach  from  the 
EUSF.27  

The  coherence  and  complementarity  between  EUSF  and  ESIF  can  be  assessed  from 
different  angles:  regulatory  framework;  governance;  thematic  objectives;  spatial 
coverage; and joint initiatives (strategies, measures, projects). 

  Regarding the regulatory framework, the coherence and complementarity is weak 
because the approach of EUSF and ESIF are completely different, the first reacts to 
emergency  situations,  the  others  support  regional  and  rural  development  with 
possible impact on the long-run. 

 

In  terms  of  governance,  the  coordination  is  ensured  by  the  Civil  Protection 
department  as  stated  in  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  reinforced  by  the  NOP 
Governance  in  the  case  of  Apulia,  Calabria,  Campania  and  Sicily.  However,  the 
approach to governance seems very different between EUSF and ESIF. The recent 
experience of reprogramming in 2017 with a pro-active role of the National Agency 
of Territorial Cohesion and the previous experiences after other disasters proved to 
be rather effective. The programming experiences show that the previous disasters 
have necessarily affected the capacity of regional authorities to plan risk prevention 
and mitigation measures. This is the case for the regions hit by an event after 2014 
and before 2016 (Emilia-Romagna, Liguria, Lombardia, Toscana, Piemonte), which 
have planned fewer resources than EU and Italian average in both ERDF and EAFRD 
programmes.  Similarly,  the  recent  reprogramming  of  ERDF  programmes  in  the 
regions hit by 2016-2017 earthquakes shows that none of these regions (Abruzzo, 
Lazio,  Marche,  Umbria)  had  planned  risk  prevention  and  management  of  non-
climate  related  natural  risks  measures,  even  if  they  had  experience  disastrous 
events in the recent two decades. 

  Thematic  coherence  and  complementarity  are  ensured  by  TO  5.    Moreover,  NOP 
Governance  and  institutional  capacity  supports  the  increased  capacity  of  local 
authorities in Southern regions for risk management and mitigation. 

  Lastly,  in  terms  of  spatial  coverage,  joint  funding  of  strategies/measures  and 
projects, the coherence and complementarity is moderate and is essentially related 
to the experiences of use of EUSF. In general terms, EUSF covers the emergency 
and  ESIF  as  well  as  other  national  funds  address  the  reconstruction,  integrating 
and completing the EUSF support. 

10.  LESSONS LEARNED 

The overall assessment of the experience of the EUSF intervention was broadly considered 
to be positive by the interviewees at all levels consulted for the research (see Table 14). 

27  The website  https://openricostruzione.regione.emilia-romagna.it/  provides additional details on 
public  reconstruction,  reconstruction  of  housing  and  business  areas  and  activies  and  other 
interventions. However, this dataset does not allow a detailed breakdown of funding source.  

24 

 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Table 14: Overall assessment of administrative lessons learned 

Activity 

Application 
process 
Information on 
how to apply 
Support by the 
Commission 
Extent of 
administrative 
demand 
Reporting 
requirements 
Overall 
experience of 
dealing with 
EUSF 

Very 
negative 

Negative 

Neutral 

Positive 

Very 
positive 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Note: Assessment based on 11 interview respondents. 

Examining  the  lessons  learned  in  more  detail,  the  following  points  can  be  made  to 
elaborate on the rankings in Table 14. 

First, the experience of the EUSF intervention, enabled further improvement of an already 
tested  application  process.    The  National  Department  of  Civil  Protection  managed  the 
whole  phase,  building  on  the  experience  acquired  in  previous  disasters  in  Italy;  this 
included  adopting  an  already  tested  approach  and  methodology  for  the  application 
process, which ensured the active involvement of public institutions, at regional and local 
levels, and the efficient assessment of damages as well as the quality of the application 
for  mobilising  the  EUSF  support.  The  existing  approach  was  fine-tuned  and  further 
improved thanks to this experience. 

Second, the Commission support was assessed as ‘very useful’ by those involved in the 
application process, in particular by the National Department of Civil Protection in ensuring 
a  smooth  implementation  of  the  EUSF  support.  The  application  of  the  aforementioned 
method  allowed  the  immediate  activation  of  all  local  authorities  and  a  profitable 
involvement of the Regional Administrations, who also actively participated in meetings in 
Brussels  and  exchanges  of  information  with  the  European  Commission  on  possible  fine 
tuning of their response. 

Third,  with  respect  to  administrative  demands,  the  EUSF  was  regarded  as  having  clear 
criteria and deadlines. The eligibility criteria and timescales to be respected were clear to 
the Italian authorities from the outset. Despite implying additional efforts for the involved 
actors, it ensured the implementation of the interventions and the related reporting in a 
relatively  short  time  period.  Although  the  regional  agencies  of  the  Civil  Protection 
Department considered that they provided continuous support to local authorities, some 
municipalities  encountered  difficulties  in  managing  the  implementation  of  operations, 
especially the reporting of expenses whose timelines are perceived as too tight.  

For  some  interviewees,  the  absence  of  codified  rules  on  the  management  of  the 
interventions  was  thought  to  be  risky,  causing  inconsistencies  in  the  management  of 
operations under the EUSF. In this regard, interviewees expressed the need for training 
to  strengthen  programming  and  analytical  capacities,  as  well  as  the  ability  of  local 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

authorities  to  cooperate  with  other  bodies.  Furthermore,  the  research  indicated  the 
fundamental importance of guaranteeing support to municipalities in the management of 
the interventions, ensuring homogenous procedures.28 

Fourth,  while  reporting  requirements  were  considered  largely  positively,  interviews 
highlighted a demand for the scheduling of reporting procedure to be a little more flexible 
and proportionate to the amount of resources to be reimbursed, without jeopardizing the 
effectiveness  of  accountability.  To  avoid  delays  in  reporting  expenses  and  possible 
discrepancies in implementation (especially in the application of costs currently linked to 
price lists at regional level), it could be useful to promote, at national level, the signing of 
framework  agreements  between  public institutions  and  suppliers  fixing  fair  prices  to  be 
applied in the event of other natural disasters. 

Fifth, notwithstanding difficulties linked to the reporting phase, the overall experience in 
dealing  with  the  EUSF  was  generally  judged  as  very  positive,  since  it  is  undoubtedly 
considered  as  an  important  additional  resource  supporting  public  institutions  in  dealing 
with  the  difficult  and  challenging  management  of  emergency  conditions  after  such  a 
striking event. 

Finally, while the interviewees collectively recognised what was termed “the extraordinary 
solidarity” shown by institutions at EU, national and regional levels, the interview research 
indicated that awareness of the EUSF does not extend much beyond the officials involved 
in  the  implementation  process.  Interviews  with  government  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders,  including  citizen  interviews,  suggested  that  the  wider  population  in  the 
affected area does not recognise the specific contribution of the Fund. It was argued that 
communication activities on the goals and results obtained through the EUSF needs to be 
strengthened for wider awareness among citizens to be achieved.  

28 This supports the academic research summarised in Section 5.2 above. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

11.  REFERENCES 

EU-level documents 

Council Regulation (EU) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European 
Union Solidarity Fund 

Regulation (EU) No 661/2011 of the  European  Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 
2014 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing 
the European Union Solidarity Fund. 

European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  for  the  application  of  the 
European  Solidarity  Fund  financial  aid  presented  by  Italy  relating  to  the  series  of 
earthquakes in Italy of May 2012, Brussels, 19.09.2012, C(2012) 6458 final 

European Commission,  Decision of the Commission, dated 3.12.2012,  awarding a grant 
from the European Union Solidarity Fund to finance emergency operations relating to the 
series of earthquakes in Italy of 2012, Brussels 3.12.2012, C(2012) 8882 final 

European Commission and Italian Government, Agreement for the implementation of the 
European Commission decision awarding a grant from the European Union Solidarity Fund 
to  finance  emergency  operations  relating  to  the  series  of  earthquakes  in  Italy  of  2012, 
Brussels, 6.12.2012, C(2012) 9342 final 

European Commission, Closure note of the EU Solidarity Fund intervention in relation to 
the earthquakes in the regions of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto of 2012 - CCI 
2012IT16SPO002, Brussels, DG REGIO.E1/JW/al D(2015) 

Italian Civil Protection document 

Italian  Department  of  Civil  Protection,  Application  to  mobilise  the  European  Union 
Solidarity Fund – EUSF, Earthquakes 2012 in the area of the Regions of: Emilia – Romagna, 
Lombardia and Veneto, July 2012 

Italian Department of Civil Protection, Implementation report on the expenses under the 
European Union Solidarity Fund to finance emergency operations relating to the series of 
earthquakes in Italy of 2012, December 2014, C(2012) 9342 final 

Italian Department of Civil Protection, Decree of the Head of the National Civil Protection 
Department no. 15 of 1 August 2012. 

Literature review 

Barone  G,  Benni  F,  Brasili  C  and  Mocetti  S  (2013)  Una  stima  degli  effetti  economici  di 
breve  periodo  del  terremoto  in  Emilia  Romagna,  Politica  economica  –  2/2013  August 
version. 

Barone G and Mocetti S (2014)  Natural disasters, growth and institutions: a  tale of two 
earthquake, Bank of Italy Working Paper, number 949, January 2014.  

Signorini  L  F  (2017)  Terremoti,  economici  e  no  Intervento  conclusivo  del  Vice  Direttore 
Generale della Banca d’Italia, Bank of Italy. 

27 

Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Pagliacci F and Bertolini P (2016)  Il terremoto del 2012 in Emilia: specificità del settore 
agro-alimentare e ruolo della cooperazione nell’emergenza  
https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/44/il-terremoto-del-2012-
emilia-specificita-del-settore-agro-alimentare-e-ruolo  

Oliva S, Lazzeretti L and Bianchi M (2018) Natural disaster and recovery processes in Italy. 
Do  Communities  shape  resilience?,  Paper  to  the  Regional  Studies  Association  European 
Conference, June 2018, Lugano.  

Main web-sites 

http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/ 

https://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/terremoto  

https://openricostruzione.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ 

http://www.sismamantova.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/site/sisma-mantova-2012 

https://www.regione.veneto.it/web/guest/sisma-del-maggio-2012 

12.  ANNEX: METHODOLOGY OF THE CASE STUDY RESEARCH 

Methodology 

This case study was researched through a mix of methods: (i) literature review (for the 
introduction and context) and desk analysis of EU regulations and official documentation 
produced for the purpose of mobilising the EUSF support as well as of institutional websites 
dedicated  to  the  2012  earthquakes  in  Northern  Italy;  and  (ii)  interviews  with  relevant 
stakeholders at national, regional and municipality levels, including representatives of the 
National Department of Civil Protection and NGOs.  

Interview templates were drafted in both Italian and English, following EPRC guidance on 
the Task 3 Case Studies provided for national experts.  

Invitations to participate in the research, including a presentation letter by the European 
Commission, were sent by email to a list of public authorities and other stakeholders whose 
addresses and telephone numbers were detected through web research (see the following 
tables ‘List of contacted public authorities’ and ‘List of other stakeholders’). 

Emails were followed by phone recalls and interviews to stakeholders, who were available 
before the deadline of 19 July, were conducted by telephone. 

Synthesis of the interviews were sent by email to the interviewees, who were invited to 
send possible integrations to the texts. Most of them replied accepting the synthesis and/or 
suggesting little fine tuning. 

The  table  below  shows  the  name  of  interviewees,  the  institutions  they  represented  and 
the dates of the interviews. 

Moreover,  the  evaluation  team  has  contacted  Ilias  Tasias  from  the  Italian  Government 
(NUVAP) in order to collect preliminary information for Task 3 and on the coherence and 
implementation of EUSF with ESIF and national programmes (Task 4 of the study).  

28 

 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Interviews with with two NGOs were used instead of the focus group considering the period 
and limited time available to conduct the case study.  

The following table ‘Interviews’ shows the list of the aforementioned institutions and the 
date when the interviews took place, while tables ‘List of contacted public authorities’ and 
‘List of other stakeholders’ give evidence of all insititutions and organizations which were 
contacted  by  email  and/or  phone  calls  and  were  not  available  for  interviews  or  did  not 
reply.   

Interviews 

Institution 

National Department of 
Civil Protection 
Regional Agency for 
reconstruction of Emilia - 
Romagna 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Lombardia 
Delegate Commissioner of 
Veneto 
Municipality of Poggio 
Renatico (FE) 

Municipality of Poggio 
Rusco (MN) 
Municipality of Reggiolo 
(RE) 
Municipality of San 
Giacomo delle Segnate 
(MN) 

Municipality of San 
Giovanni del Dosso (MN) 

Italian Red Cross 
Prociv - Arci 

Type of 
institution 
Public 

Name of 
interviewee 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

NGO 
NGO 

Date 

19.07.2018 

16.07.2018 

13.07.2018 

12.07.2018 

10.07.2018 

12.07.2018 

10.07.2018 

12.07.2018 

11.07.2018 

12.07.2018 
11.07.2018 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

List of contacted public authorities 

The following table shows the full list of public authorities by region, province, organization 
and role in the institution contacted by email and/or by telephone with the aim of arranging 
interviews.  

Region 

National 

Administration/ 
Organization name 

Province 

Role 

Presidency of the Council of 
Ministers, Civil Protection Dept., 
International Relations and Activities 
Unit 

National 

Emilia Romagna  Commissario delegato alla 

Regional 

ricostruzione 

Emilia Romagna  Agenzia per la ricostruzione 

Emilia Romagna  URP Numero verde sisma  

Regional 

Regional 

Emilia Romagna  URP Numero verde sisma Imprese 

Regional 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Cavezzo 

Emilia Romagna 

Municipality of Cavezzo 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Cavezzo 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Concordia sulla 

Secchia 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Concordia sulla 

Secchia 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Concordia sulla 

Secchia 
Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Mirandola 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Mirandola 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Mirandola 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Novi di Modena 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Novi di Modena 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Finale Emilia 

Emilia Romagna 

Municipality of Finale Emilia 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Finale Emilia 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

MO 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of San felice sul Panaro  MO 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of San felice sul Panaro  MO 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Medolla 

Emilia Romagna 

Municipality of Medolla 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Camposanto 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Sant'Agostino 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Sant'Agostino 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Mirabello 
Emilia Romagna  Province of Ferrara 
Emilia Romagna  Municpality of Bondeno 
Emilia Romagna  Municpality of Bondeno 

Emilia Romagna  Municpality of Bondeno 

Emilia Romagna  Municpality of Bondeno 

MO 

MO 

MO 

FE 

FE 

FE 
FE 
FE 
FE 

FE 

FE 

30 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Poggio Renatico 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Poggio Renatico 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Poggio Renatico 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Vigarano Mainarda 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Vigarano Mainarda 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Crevalcore 

Emilia Romagna 

Municipality of Crevalcore 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Reggiolo 
Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Reggiolo 

Emilia Romagna  Municipality of Reggiolo 

Lombardia 

Lombardia 

Lombardia 
Lombardia 

Lombardia 

Lombardia 

Lombardia 

Lombardia 

Commissario delegato alla 
ricostruzione 
Municipality of Moglia 

Municipality of Moglia 
Municipality of san Giacomo delle 
Segnate 
Municipality of san Giacomo delle 
Segnate 
Municipality of San Giovanni del 
Dosso 
Municipality of San Giovanni del 
Dosso 
Municipality of Quistello 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Quistello 

Lombardia 
Lombardia 

Municiplaity of Quingentole 
Municiplaity of Quingentole 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Schivenoglia 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Schivenoglia 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Poggio Rusco 

Lombardia 
Lombardia 

Municipality of Poggio Rusco 
Municipality of Pegognaga 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Pegognaga 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Pegognaga 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Gonzaga 

Lombardia 

Municipality of Gonzaga 

FE 

FE 

FE 

FE 

FE 

BO 

BO 

RE 
RE 

RE 

MN 

MN 
MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 
MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 
MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

Lombardia 
Veneto 

Veneto 

Consorzio Oltrepo Mantovano 
Direzione rapporti Stato/Regioni e 
supporto programma del Presidente 
Province of Rovigo 

MN 
Regional 

RO 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Italy 

List of other stakeholders 

Region 

Organization name 

Type of 
stakeholder 

Name and role 

Emilia-Romagna 

Croce Rossa Italiana - Comitato 
Regionale E-R 

Lombardia  

Veneto 

Croce Rossa Italiana - Comitato 
Regionale Lombardia 

Croce Rossa Italiana - Comitato 
Regionale Veneto 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

Emilia - Romagna 

Associazione Nazionale Misericordie 
- Sede regionale 

NGO 

Veneto 

Corpo di soccorso Ordine di Malta - 
Gruppo di Padova-Rovigo 

NGO 

Emilia - Romagna 

Corpo di soccorso Ordine di Malta - 
Raggruppamento Romagna 

NGO 

Emilia - Romagna 

Prociv-Arci (Associazione Nazionale 
Volontari per la Protezione Civile) 

NGO 

Nazionale 

Prociv-Arci (Associazione Nazionale 
Volontari per la Protezione Civile) 

NGO 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex Post Evaluation of the EUSF 2002-2016: Case Study Report for Bulgaria 

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
4
-
1
9
-
4
1
6
-
E
N
-
N

  doi: 10.2776/312607