Commission staff working document: Evaluation of the European Union Solidarity Fund 2002-2017
Solidarity is a core value upon which the European Union is built, and the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is a budgetary instrument designed to support EU solidarity by contributing to post-disaster relief in Member States and accession countries confronted with devastating natural disasters.
The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the implementation and performance of EUSF over the period 2002-2017, and to identify the scope for further policy learning.
The specific objectives of the evaluation include the following:
- Assess the extent to which the Fund meets its overall strategic and operational objectives of supporting EU solidarity and contributing with financial aid to the post-disaster response in affected countries.
- Analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of the approval, implementation and closure (where applicable) of all EUSF interventions since the Fund’s establishment in 2002 and until end-2017.
- Gather further evidence on the Fund’s implementation and performance based on case studies, including an analysis of the role of the reformed EUSF in inspiring further policy developments in national systems for disaster risk management.
- Analyse public awareness of the EU’s interventions in disaster situations with the EU Solidarity Fund, and the Fund’s media image.
- Analyse the synergies between EUSF and other EU policy instruments within the EU wider framework for preparedness, prevention and management of disaster risks.
- Analyse stakeholders’ perceptions of the EU added value of EUSF and their overall satisfaction with the Fund.
The evaluation covers all 24 beneficiary countries which received EUSF support during the reference period, including 23 Member States and 1 accession country, and was carried out between September 2017 and March 2019. This report is structured as follows.
With the first section providing the introduction, Section 2 describes the EUSF and its main features, discussing also the changes introduced with the Fund’s revision in 2014. This section also explains the initial points of reference considered in the design of the evaluation. Section 3 summarises the data on the Fund’s implementation between 2002 and 2017, and the fourth section presents the methodology of the evaluation, main challenges encountered, and a brief assessment of the robustness of the analysis. Section 5 presents the evaluation findings and the supporting evidence for each of the six evaluation criteria, and the sixth section offers conclusions.