This is the Final Report of the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) 2002-2016. It describes the aims and operation of the Fund, its evolution over time, and it provides answers to a series of evaluation questions concerning its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value for the EU. In addition, it assesses evaluation questions relating to the contribution of the EUSF to solidarity in the EU. The study presents the results of empirical work drawing on in-depth examination of documentation of all the applications to the EUSF from its inception in 2002 up to the end of 2016, fieldwork research for case studies of seven EUSF interventions and empirical investigation of the synergies of the Fund with other EU and domestic intervention for disaster risk prevention and management. The evaluation finds that the EUSF achieves its core aim of expressing the EU’s solidarity towards countries affected by severe natural disasters, but it is less obvious that it succeeds in the political aim of demonstrating the value of the EU for beneficiaries.
A number of high profile crises and disasters have driven the EU to increase cooperation among its member states in the area of civil protection and to enhance its capacity to conduct civil protection operations in Europe and around the world. However, in the light of recent transboundary crises in the EU, manifested by the refugee crisis, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters, it is far from clear how effective such cooperative EU arrangements can be due to differences in the way national civil protection has been organized and due to the question of whether sufficient trust exists within and between the involved organizations. In this article, drawing from a unique study of civil protection agencies in 17 EU member states, and utilizing theories on crisis management, public administration and trust, we shed light on the factors that promote national and EU-level effectiveness in civil protection and crisis management.
In this article, the author analyses solidarity between regions during times of crisis. He defines two types of solidarity preferences. Negative solidarity means that territories will regard solidarity only as appropriate in the limits of intergovernmental contracts and consider the fiscal consequences of solidarity to be more important than the social consequences. Positive solidarity implies that regions consider solidarity even if it goes beyond existing intergovernmental contracts as they regard social consequences to be more important than fiscal consequences. The author argues that the combination of regional collective identities, the relative importance of intergovernmental over parliamentary decision-making, and the complexity of policy problems impact on preferences for solidarity.
Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding to undermine the European Union’s sustainable development goals, a desire to increase societal resilience to flooding has prompted the introduction of a common European Framework. We provide a legal and policy analysis of the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) in six countries: Belgium (Flemish region), England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Evaluation criteria from existing legal and policy literature frame the study of the Directive and its effect on enhancing or constraining societal resilience by using an adaptive governance approach. These criteria are initially used to analyze the key components of the EU approach, before providing insight of the implementation of the Directive at a national level
Sally J. Priest at al, Ecology and Society, Dec 2016, Vol. 21, No. 4
This paper explores the issue and identifies potential initiatives to further improve the structural and capability components of EU crisis response. They include options for streamlining civilian and military crisis response and management, improving cooperation with industry, enhancing foresight, war-gaming, international exercises and cyber capabilities, and the development of capability goals, readiness monitoring, and ensured mobility of urgently needed assets.
Established in 2002 to support disaster-stricken regions, the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) complements the efforts of public authorities by helping to fund vital emergency and recovery operations in areas affected by catastrophes such as flooding, earthquakes and forest fires. EUSF funding is granted following an application from a Member State or candidate country, and may be used to finance measures including restoring infrastructure to working order, providing temporary accommodation and cleaning up disaster areas. The July 2021 floods in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and the recent forest fires in Cyprus, Greece and Italy are a potent reminder of the EU's vulnerability in the face of the unpredictable forces of nature.
The coronavirus crisis has underlined the need for the European Union (EU) to devote greater efforts to anticipatory governance, and to attempt to strengthen its resilience in the face of risks from both foreseeable and unforeseeable events. This paper builds further on an initial 'mapping' in mid-2020 of some 66 potential structural risks which could confront Europe over the coming decade, and a second paper last autumn which looked at the EU's capabilities to address 33 of those risks assessed as being more significant or likely, and at the various gaps in policy and instruments at the Union's disposal. Delving deeper in 25 specific areas, this new paper identifies priorities for building greater resilience within the Union system, drawing on the European Parliament's own resolutions and proposals made by other EU institutions, as well as by outside experts and stakeholders. In the process, it highlights some of the key constraints that will need to be addressed if strengthened resilience is to be achieved, as well as the opportunities that follow from such an approach.