EN    EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 26.9.2017  
SWD(2017) 314 final  
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
Accompanying the document  
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council  
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the 
food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant 
reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 
2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European 
Parliament and of t he Council and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 
76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC  
{COM(2017) 546 final}  
{SWD(2017) 315 final}  
{SWD(2017) 316 final}   
 
2 
 1. INTRODUCTION  
The European Commission provides financial support to a number of measures within the 
food chain policy, aimed to contribute to a high level of health for humans, animals and 
plants. The provisions for the management of this expenditure are laid down in Regulation 
(EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 . In 
particular, it covers the spending for food chain, animal health and animal welfare, plant 
health and plant reproductive material. It entered into force at the end of June 2014 and 
established a Common Financial Framework (CFF) for all these areas (he reinafter: the "CFF 
Regulation").  
Article  42 of the Regulation provides that the Commission establishes and presents to the 
European Parliament and to the Council a mid -term evaluation report by 30 June 2017. The 
Commission Report shall assess whether, in terms of their results and impacts, the measures 
referred to in Chapters I and II of Title II (respectively, animal health and plant health 
measures) and in Articles 30 and 31 of Chapter III (respectively, European Union Reference 
laboratories and training  activities) of the Regulation achieve the objectives set out in Article 
2(1), as regards the efficiency of the use of resources and its added value, at Union level . The 
Report shall address the scope for simplification, the continued relevance of all obje ctives, 
and the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth. It shall also take into account results on the long -term impact of the predecessor 
measures.  
The present Staff Working Document (SWD) summarise s the outcome of the mid -term 
evaluation based on the results of a study conducted by an external contractor and on an 
internal assessment performed by the Commission. The mid -term evaluation fully covers the 
implementation of the above -referred measures f or 2014, 2015 and partially 2016, dependant 
on preliminary data available. It also takes into account results on the long -term impact of the 
predecessor measures . It provides a qualitative and quantitative overview of the measures 
implemented under the CFF  Regulation, and assesses them against the five evaluation criteria 
set by the Better Regulation1 policies in the European Commission: relevance, European 
added value, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  
The assessment of the sectorial policies under  which the financed measures fall are not in the 
scope of this evaluation.  
 
2. BACKGROUND  
 
2.1. The CFF Regulation  
In line with the Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020'2, the CFF Regulation was 
envisaged in order to improve the functioning of the activities implemented within this area, 
as well as to focus on EU funding priorities providing real added value. In this view, it aimed 
                                                            
1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law -making -process/better -regulation -why-and-how_en  
2 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM -2011 -500_Part_I_en.pdf  
 
3 
 at modernising and rationalising the pre -existing financial provisions, providing a simplified 
financial framework covering the whole food safety area.  
Most of the spending measures covered by the CFF Regulation used to receive EU financial 
support under the previous legislation, notably:  
- in the veterinary area: eradication, control and surveillance programmes (hereinafter: 
"veterinary programmes") implemented by the Member States, which are aimed to 
progressively eliminate animal diseases and zoonoses and to implement disease control 
measures; an d the veterinary emergency measures, which are aimed to timely cope with 
emergency situations related to animal health: before the entry into force of the CFF, those 
activities were covered by the so -called "veterinary fund", namely Council Decision 
2009/4 70/EC;  
- in the phytosanitary area: emergency measures to timely cope with emergency situations 
related to plant health, while preventing further spread and introduction into the Union 
territory; prior to the CFF Regulation, they were co -financed under Directive 2000/29/EC;  
- in the area of official controls: the European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) 
activities, which are aimed to ensure high -quality, uniform testing in the EU and to 
support the Commission activities on risk management and risk ass essment in the area of 
laboratory analysis; and the Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) programme, which is a 
training initiative addressing national authority staff involved in official controls in the 
areas of food and feed law, animal health and welfa re and plant health rules: before the 
CFF they received financial support under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.  
Since the entry into force of the CFF Regulation, all the spending activities listed above have 
their financial provisions under a single framework , with harmonised procedures, 
standardised rates, clarified eligible costs and measures. From the operational point of view, 
they are being implemented in full continuity with the predecessor measures.  
The CFF Regulation introduced new measures in the phyt osanitary area, namely the 
possibility to co -finance the implementation of survey programmes concerning the presence 
of pests in the Union territory. They consist of surveillance measures allowing preventing the 
introduction into the EU or the spread withi n the EU of harmful organism.  
 
2.2. Objectives of the CFF Regulation  
The general policy objective of the CFF Regulation is to contribute to a high level of health 
for humans, animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas, by preventing and 
eradic ating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high level of protection for consumers and 
the environment, while enhancing the competitiveness of the Union food and feed industry 
and favouring the creation of jobs.  
This general objective is crystallised into f our specific objectives, one for each of the four 
spending areas covered by the regulation itself, namely: food safety, animal health and 
welfare, plant health, official controls.  
 
4 
 The specific objectives are accompanied by a number of specific indicators,  also set out in the 
CFF Regulation itself, which provides a preliminary basis to conduct a sectorial evaluation of 
the measures implemented under each of the four covered spending areas.  
Following to the adoption of the CFF Regulation, those specific indi cators were further 
translated by the DG SANTE policy units concerned into 21 operational technical indicators 
(listed in Annex VI), which were used in the context of the present evaluation.  
The CFF general objective, specific objectives, and specific indi cators are shown in the table 
below:  
 
Table 1. CFF objectives and indicators  
General objective  
To contribute to a high level of health for humans, animals and plants along the food chain 
and in related areas, by preventing and eradicating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high 
level of protection for consumers and the environment, while enhancing the competitiveness 
of the Union food and feed industry and favouring the creation of jobs  
Specific objectives  
Food safety:  
to contribute to a high 
level of safety of food 
and food production 
systems and of other 
products which may 
affect the safety of food, 
while improving the 
sustainability of food 
production  
 Animal health and 
welfare : 
to contribute to 
achieving a higher 
animal health status 
for the Unio n and to 
support the 
improvement of the 
welfare of animals  Plant health : 
to contribute to the 
timely detection of 
pests and their 
eradication where 
those pests have 
entered the Union  Official controls 
and other 
activities : 
to contribute to 
improving the 
effectiveness, 
efficiency and 
reliability of 
official controls 
and other activities 
carried out with a 
view to the 
effective 
implementation of 
and compliance 
with the Union 
rules (referred to in 
Article 1)  
 
5 
 Specific indicators  
A reduction in the 
number of cases of 
diseases in humans in 
the Union which are 
linked to food safety or 
zoonoses  An increase in the 
number of Member 
States or their regions 
which are free from 
animal diseases in 
respect of which a 
financial contribution 
is granted  
 
An overall reducti on 
of disease parameters 
such as incidence, 
prevalence and 
number of outbreaks  The coverage of the 
Union territory by 
surveys for pests, in 
particular for pests 
not known to occur 
in the Union 
territory and pests 
considered to be 
most dangerous for 
the Uni on territory  
 
The time and 
success rate for the 
eradication of those 
pests  A favourable trend 
in the results of 
controls in 
particular areas of 
concern carried out 
and reported on by 
Commission 
experts in the 
Member States  
 
To achieve the objectives, the EU funding under the CFF Regulation addresses problems 
related to three major categories of needs in this area, namely the demands for:  
 increased protection, by preventing risks which might affect animals, plants or any step of 
the food chain;  
 proper and timely reaction in case of crisis, by extinguishing the emergency factor or 
containing its spread;  
 healthier animals and plants, and safer food, by eliminating diseases and pests which 
affect the EU Member States.  
 
The implementation of the CFF activities is articulated in several levels of intervention, and 
the specific actions implemented vary depending on the degree of presence of the disease or 
pest concerned in the EU territory.  
If a disease or a pest is not present in the EU or in a Member State, but there is a risk that it 
could enter its territory, a number prevention measures are put in place to avoid its 
introduction. Particularly, these measures concern the so -called "trans -boundary" diseases or 
pests, which are able to spread and transmit regardl ess of any geographical barrier. They 
mainly consist in the funding of monitoring activities to be conducted in a buffer zone in 
neighbouring third countries or regions. In addition, for some strategic animal diseases, a 
vaccine stock ("vaccine bank") is a lso established at EU level, to be immediately used in case 
of emergency situations.  
If a certain disease or pest is more likely to enter or has already entered the EU or a Member 
State, surveillance activities are put in place to, respectively, timely det ect its introduction or 
assess its epidemiological evolution since the initial stages. The early detection is of 
fundamental importance especially in the case of certain animal diseases and plant which, 
 
6 
 once entered, may have a potential devastating effect  on animal and crop production and on 
public health.  
In case an outbreak occurs, early reaction  measures are immediately implemented to prevent 
the spread of the disease or the pest, and to extinguish the outbreak in a short time, in order to 
minimize the  impact on, for instance, plant and animal production and trade. These 
emergency interventions include felling of infected trees  and phytosanitary treatments, culling 
of infected animals or, when possible, emergency vaccination, accompanied by movement 
restrictions.  
When an animal disease or a plant pest is endemic or detected in the Union territory, a 
number of cure  activities are put in place to progressively eliminate it from the concerned 
area  and prevent its further spread. Particularly, they consist i n medium - or long -term 
eradication programmes implemented by the Member States, with a consequent positive 
impact for the Union as whole in terms of on public health, animal or plant productions, 
internal market and trade.  
The comprehensive set of measure s described above, implemented by the Member States, is 
complemented by the funding of additional activities aimed to enhance the safety of EU food 
products in the interest of all European citizens. Particularly, financial support is given for the 
EU Refer ence Laboratories (EURLs), which ensures high -quality and uniform testing in the 
EU, and provides trainings to hundreds of National Reference Laboratories (NRL) in a 
number of food safety priority areas. Another main element of the EU co -financing for food  
safety is the initiative "Better Training for Safer Food", aimed at training every year some 
7000 officials of national competent authorities involved in official controls.  
3. METHOD  
The basis for the evaluation was set up in the evaluation roadmap3. The evaluation was 
supported by an  Interservice Steering Group, which oversaw the whole evaluation exercise . 
The evaluation focuses on the first three years of implementation of the CFF Regulation, fully 
assessing 2014 and 2015 and only partially 2016, based o n preliminary data available.  
As requested by Article 42 of the CFF Regulation, the following domains were addressed:  
 Animal health:  
o Emergency measures.  
o Programmes for eradication, control and surveillance of animal diseases and 
zoonosis (hereinafter: vete rinary programmes), where:  
 Eradication programmes aim to result in biological extinction of an animal 
disease or zoonosis. The final target of an eradication programme shall be 
to obtain the free or officially free -status of the territory according to Unio n 
legislation, where such possibility exists.  
 Control programmes aim to obtain or maintain the prevalence of an animal 
disease or zoonosis below a sanitary acceptable level.  
                                                            
3 http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm . 
 
7 
  Surveillance programmes refer to activities to collect and record data on 
specific diseases in defined populations over a period of time, in order to 
assess the epidemiological evolution of the diseases and the ability to take 
targeted measures for control and eradication.  
 Plant health:  
o Emergency measures.  
o Survey programmes conc erning presence of pests.  
 Official controls and other activities:  
o European Union Reference laboratories.  
o Training (Better training for Safer Food Initiative).  
The above -listed spending measures were firstly assessed using the set of 21 operational 
technica l indicators previously developed and monitored at level, which were shared with the 
contractor at the very initial stages of the external study supporting the evaluation. The 
qualitative and quantitative description of those measures was complemented with  the 
gathering of data, which was undertaken in a stepwise approach using the following sources:  
 Data sources of the Commission:  
 financial data (e.g. budget implementation), technical data (e.g. operational 
indicators); annual financial and technical repor ts covering animal and plant health, 
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF.  
 indicators on e.g. trade, animal population;  
 Literature review: studies, evaluations, conducted either independently or on behalf of the 
Commission on CFF -related topics;  
 Stakeholder consultation, consisting of:  
▪ Open public consultation: questionnaire published in English during 12 weeks on the 
European Commission ‘Public consultations’ website that received 5 responses  
▪ Targeted stakeholder consul tation with specific questionnaires for:  
o Competent authorities, stakeholders linked to the industry (including farmers' 
organisations, veterinary organisations), EU and national associations, 
international organisations and NGOs.  
o EU Reference Laboratories  
o Better Training for Safer Food initiative  
▪ In-depth stakeholder interviews: addressing representatives of the European 
Commission, and other selected stakeholders (Competent authorities, industry 
representatives, NGOs) in a number of Member States. The aim of the interviews was to 
identify achievements, good practices, problems and challenges regarding implementation 
of the CFF Regulation. The main purpose of the interviews was to fill information gaps 
and check information retrieved from other sources f or triangulation.  
 Case studies: covering a significant selection of animal diseases and plant pests; based on 
the assessment of the results from the desk study and questionnaires, several stakeholders 
were identified to be interviewed for the case studies.  
All relevant stakeholders group were reached by the consultation procedure, and most 
individual stakeholder contacted cooperated in the exercise.  
 
8 
 The final report of the external study supporting the evaluation provides an overview of the 
measures impleme nted over the three -year period 2014 -2016. There are however a number of 
issues to consider when assessing the strengths of the evidence base used for this study, 
specifically linked to the limited time available to undertake the evaluation:  
 The mid -term e valuation exercise started in the second half of 2016, where complete 
technical and financial data were only available for the first two years of implementation 
of the CFF Regulation.  
 A number of transitory measures applied during both 2014 and 2015, while  the provisions 
laid down in the CFF Regulation are fully applicable only from 2016.  
 The mid -term evaluation has considered the long -term impact of predecessor measures 
except in the phytosanitary area, notably for the survey programmes which were firstly 
implemented in the framework of the CFF Regulation.  
Moreover, no cost -effectiveness analysis has been developed so far in the CFF area. Whilst a 
methodological approach to conduct this kind of economic analysis was expected to be 
delivered in the context o f the external study, the task was not investigated as requested.  
Therefore, a significant instrument to perform the evaluation is missing. These shortcomings 
have objectively limited the external analysis, which is mostly descriptive and largely based 
on the opinions of the stakeholders and on the perceptions of the beneficiaries of the CFF 
financial support. It does not include an in -depth investigation of the causal effects behind the 
results and impacts achieved by the implementation of the CFF Regulat ion. The overall 
evaluation exercise is nevertheless complemented by the internal assessment conducted at EU 
level, which largely relies on the continuous analysis performed at policy, technical and 
financial level by the Commission services, including the  constant dialogue with all CFF 
beneficiaries for both scientific and budgetary aspects. The monitoring of the operational 
technical indicators' values was particularly useful in the context of this evaluation: even if 
they do not provide cost -effectivenes s results, those indicators allow evaluating the 
achievements and/or the performance of the major activities implemented thanks to the EU 
funding in the areas covered by the CFF.  
 
4. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY  
The CFF has a maximum total ceiling for expend iture of EUR 1  891 936 0004 over the seven -
year period 2014 –2020. Table 2 below shows the amounts committed during the period under 
evaluation, which were substantially in line with the forecasted budget. For the concerned 
years, it was sufficient to cover  the different needs, thanks to the good results achieved in the 
four spending areas; the positive trend mainly concerned the animal health field, especially 
eradication programmes, where the successful implementation of long -term measures led to 
the progr essive reduction of the related spending, and veterinary emergency measures, whose 
ad hoc system of early detection and intervention allowed to timely extinguish or contain the 
outbreaks occurred in the period under evaluation, therefore limiting the assoc iated costs.  
                                                            
4 In current prices  
 
9 
 Table 2. Commitments for 2014, 2015 and 2016 CFF activities  
 
The main direct beneficiaries of the EU financial contribution made under the CFF are the 
competent authorities in the Member States, which receive a compensation for the eligible 
costs incurred to carry out the eligible measures. Both the eligible measures and the eligib le 
costs are listed in the CFF Regulation.  
The Union financial contribution mostly takes the form of grants (the only exception being 
the voluntary payments to international organizations), with a basic reimbursement of no 
more than 50% of the eligible cos ts; under specific conditions, the applicable rate can be 
increased to 75% or 100%.  
 
4.1. Animal health  
The CFF Regulation contribution for animal health covers the implementation of veterinary 
programmes, which are aimed to implement eradication, control or surveillance activities for 
animal diseases and zoonoses, and of veterinary emergency measures, carried out to timely 
intervene in the occurrence of outbreaks or epidemics affecting animals. The diseases eligible 
for EU financial contribution under veterin ary emergency measures and programmes are 
listed, respectively, in Annex I and in Annex II to the CFF Regulation. The eligible costs 
(including, for example, the costs of animals slaughtering/culling and the vaccination costs) 
are also listed in specific a rticles of the Regulation. Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists the 
priorities for Union financial support as regards the orientation of veterinary programmes: 
based on these priorities for funding, and on the annual evaluation of the epidemiological 
situation and of the most immediate risks identified, 10 out of the 25 diseases listed in Annex 
II to the CFF Regulation have been identified as priority diseases for the period 2014 -20165. 
Payments for veterinary programmes alone make up almost three quarters  of the expenditure 
under the EU food chain budget. For the 2014 and 2015 programmes, it amounted to, 
respectively, EUR 136.22 and EUR 147.90 million.  
                                                            
5 African swine fever; avian influenza in poultry and wild birds; classical swine fever; rabies; bovine  brucellosis; 
ovine and caprine brucellosis; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; zoonotic Salmonella; bovine 
tuberculosis; bluetongue in endemic or high risk areas.   2014  2015  2016  
Veterinary programmes and vaccines  172.356.231  164.017.000  161.553.100  
Plant health survey programmes  205.500  7.585.000  11.375.400  
Animal health and plant health emergency measures  12.662.896  16.111.611  27.376.398  
EURLs  15.001.000  15.500.000  16.000.000  
BTSF  14.885.000  14.685.000  15.365.000  
Total  215.110.627  217.898.611  231.669.898  
Forecast budget (in million euro)  253,4  258,5  261,0  
 
10 
 Over the period considered, the programmes addressing five diseases, namely bovine 
tuberculosis, TSE/BSE/ scrapie, rabies eradication, salmonella, and ovine & caprine 
brucellosis, represented between 84% and 90 % of the payments for veterinary programmes.  
The MSs with the highest co -funding of animal health programmes are UK, Spain, Italy, 
Ireland and Poland. The amounts strongly depend on the type of disease addressed, on the 
specific measures co -financed and on the epidemiological situation in the Member States 
concerned.   
If the total spending for veterinary programmes is consistent, payments for animal hea lth 
emergency measures are volatile, depending on the changes in the epidemiological situation 
over the years. For the measures implemented in 2014 and 2015, they amounted to, 
respectively, EUR 7.67 and EUR 11.76 million.  
During the period considered, abou t 50% of the budget has gone to emergency payments for 
avian influenza, followed by African swine fever (17%) and bluetongue surveillance (14%).  
 
4.2. Plant health  
The CFF Regulation contribution for plant health covers the implementation of survey 
programmes, which are aimed to support early detection of pests in the EU territory, and 
implement phytosanitary emergency measures in case of outbreaks.  
The list of pests eligible for EU co -financing under the survey programmes includes hundreds 
of harmful organisms,  which are subject to an annual prioritisation. This list is not integrated 
in the CFF Regulation, but laid down in the specific plant health legislation. Survey 
programme were first established and co -financed in 2015, with 17 EU countries presenting a 
programme in 2015 and 22 in 2016. Payments for 2015 survey amounted to EUR 4.2 million, 
(payment for 2016 will be finalised by end of 2017).  
The implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures are instead developed for a limited 
number of pests which des erve a more targeted control strategy in order to prevent further 
spread and introduction into the rest of the Union territory. Among other pests, emergency 
measures have been developed so far for Xylella fastidiosa , Bursaphelenchus xylophilus  (so 
called:" Pinewood nematode")  Anoplophora chinensis and Anoplophora glabripennis , 
Pomacea, Epitrix spp., whose further spread into the Union territory can cause unacceptable 
social, environmental and economic consequences. The objective of eradication of plant pest s 
remains a complex objective to achieve due to lack of effective treatment solutions, the high 
number of susceptible plant species, population dynamics and lifecycle of pests and their 
vectors present in forests, parks and plantations with high economic, social and environmental 
value. Very few experience has proven that eradication is possible only if decisive measures 
are put immediately in place. This was the case in two out of four outbreaks of Pinewood 
nematode in Spain, two outbreaks of Anoplophora c hinensis in Denmark and in The 
Netherlands and two outbreaks of Anoplophora glabripennis  in Germany and in The 
Netherlands. However, when the pest is considered to be established in a certain territory and 
eradication is no longer feasible, containment mea sures may still provide sufficient guarantees 
 
11 
 to prevent further spread of the pests in the Union territory. In this respect, for example, the 
EU financial support has allowed to successfully containing Pinewood nematode in Portugal 
since 1999, minimising the risk of further spread to neighbouring Member States, while 
preserving the functioning of the internal market. Similarly to the animal health area, although 
very limited in scale, the amount paid in plant health for emergency measures varies 
substantia lly between years. For the measures implemented in 2014 and 2015, payments 
amounted to EUR 7.2 and EUR 0.9 million, respectively. In the period considered, as far as 
emergency measures are concerned, three pests alone, namely Bursaphelenchus xylophilus , 
Anoplophora glabripennis  and Pomacea insularum , were responsible for almost all payments 
(91%) for plant health emergency measures.  
 
4.3. Official controls  
The main spending measures carried out under the official controls area consist of the 
activities performed  by the EU Reference laboratories, the implementation of the BTSF 
programme.  
EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs) activities are financed at 100% by the EU food chain 
budget, and are aimed to ensure high -quality and uniform testing in the EU, and to provide 
trainings to hundreds of National Reference Laboratories (NRL) in a number of food safety 
priority areas. This ensures that the regulatory framework is applied in a consistent way as 
regards laboratory analysis and compliance testing used in the context of official control.. 
Annual payments for EURLs have been increasing over the last years, from EUR 14,01 
million for 2014 activities to EUR 14,46 million for 2015 and EUR 16 million for 20166. 
The "Better Training for Safer Food" initiative is also financed a t 100% by the EU budget, 
and consists of a training programme aimed to prepare national staff from both EU Member 
States and third countries in all areas covered by the CFF Regulation. The BTSF training 
programme has covered, for the three years considered , 52 topics of key importance for the 
CFF areas, such as: foodborne outbreak investigations, African swine fever outbreaks 
management. This initiative has trained every year some 7000 officials of competent 
authorities involved in official controls, promot ing a common approach towards the 
implementation of EU legislation. Annual expenditure for BTSF activities amounted to EUR 
15 million for 2014 trainings and to EUR 14,5 million for 2015 trainings.  
 
5. ANSWERS TO EVALUATION  QUESTIONS  
The mid -term evaluation a ssessed the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU 
added value of the CFF Regulation, answering to the twelve evaluation questions addressed in 
respect to these five evaluation criteria.   
 
                                                            
6 Provisional data  
 
12 
 5.1. Relevance  
To measure the relevance, questions were asked about the extent to which the objectives of 
the CFF Regulation are still valid and in accordance with food chain needs in Europe, and on 
whether new relevant needs have emerged since the adoption of the Regulation itself.  
 
EQ1.  To what extent are the CFF objectives still valid and in accordance with food chain 
needs in the EU?’  
The specific objectives set out in the CFF Regulation are mostly valid, and the EU financial 
supports towards their achievement continue providing a resp onse to the specific EU needs in 
this field.  
In the animal health area, the contribution to a higher animal health status remains the 
overarching goal, which is being attained through the implementation of both emergency 
measures and veterinary programmes.  Outbreaks of diseases having a high potential impact 
on human and animal health, as well as from the economic and social points of view, occur 
every year. As the number of outbreaks and their impact vary substantially between years, it is 
necessary to kee p emergency funding at EU level, with financial resources specifically and 
immediately available to address crisis events, to ensure a rapid and comprehensive response 
in those cases. The CFF has also the facility to take action against new emerging diseas es 
(such as LSD), therefore adapting to new needs. Veterinary programmes also remain a 
funding priority for the achievement of the relevant CFF objectives, especially eradication 
activities, in the light of the long -term impact of their implementation. Tho se programmes 
proved to be successful in most cases, and many of them, such as the programme addressing 
rabies, can be wound down in the near future due to complete eradication.   
As concerns plant health, the objective of the timely detection of pests and  their eradication 
once they have entered the Union remains the key priority for the Union. However, very few 
experience has proved that eradication of plant pests is achievable  and only in case  effective 
measures are implemented at the very earliest sta ges of the outbreak (Eradication has been 
successful only in few cases: two out of four outbreaks of Pinewood nematode in Spain; two 
outbreaks of Anoplophora chinensis in Denmark and in The Netherlands; two outbreaks of 
Anoplophora glabripennis  in Germany and in The Netherlands. Vice-versa ,  Member States 
have been able to successfully contain or minimise the risk of further the spread of some pests 
into the rest of the Union territory (e.g. Pomacea in Spain, Pinewood nematode in Portugal). 
The contribution  to the timely detection and to the implementation of strict emergency 
measures through EU funding is increasingly relevant, particularly when those activities are 
combined with surveillance programmes to check the presence of harmful organisms.  
The comple mentary activities carried out by the EURLs and in the context of the BTSF 
programme have been contributing to the effective implementation of and compliance with 
the Union rules in this area7. In fact, such activities - from the tests carried out by the 
laboratories to the trainings addressing national officials - have supported a uniform 
                                                            
7 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF Intern ational Consulting, 2017), pages 92 -93 
 
13 
 implementation of controls throughout the EU and to a common understanding across 
Member States of their obligations and how to best enforce relevant EU legislation.8 Their 
importance remains strategic within the overall food chain system, where a major objective is 
still the improvement of the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of official controls.  
The validity of the horizontal food safety objective is to be fram ed within the overall 
implementation of the CFF Regulation, considering that its achievement results from the 
combination of all sectorial measures financially supported by the CFF. Animal health, plant 
health, and official control activities all contribut e to having a high level of safety of food and 
of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens. The safety of food requires safe 
and healthy animals, plants and a high -standard system of controls. The European agricultural 
productions are gl obally appreciated for their quality as well as for their high -level safety 
standards, making the EU agri -food industry the largest manufacturing sector in Europe and a 
leading player worldwide.  In this context, the EU food safety budget plays an important  role 
in supporting the specific measures contributing to achieve this objective9. 
 
EQ2.  Are the needs identified at the time of the adoption of the CFF still relevant or have 
new needs emerged which necessitate an adjustment of the Regulation?’  
The gener al food chain needs identified at the start of the CFF are still relevant, as they 
mainly consist of either long -term or permanent issues which have been successfully 
addressed thanks to the EU financial contribution.  
 Being situated under the Commission's  priority on security and citizenship, the CFF has to be 
seen within the context of protection of the EU's productions, its industry, as well as each 
single citizen. This need translates into the food safety policy, which is primarily aimed at 
protecting h uman, animal and plant health in the EU. Protection is a solid concept in this 
policy area: the principle "prevention is better than cure" has been the leading thread since the 
launch of the EU animal health strategy (AHS), ten years ago, then embraced in the plant 
health area too. The strengthening of the protective approach is closely related to the 
continuous enhancement of the crisis preparedness system, which has been a pillar of the EU 
food safety system for a long time. It consists of a number of mea sures put in place in view of 
either avoiding or minimising the sanitary and economic impact of possible future crises, 
depending on the severity of the situation. The early detection is of fundamental importance 
especially in the case of certain animal di seases and plant pests which, once entered, may 
have a potential devastating effect on animal and crop/forests production and on public health. 
Thanks to early detection and to immediate application of EU co -funded emergency measures 
the EU has experienced  no large -scale food safety crises for almost ten years, and all 
outbreaks have been successfully contained. Three year after the entry into force of the CFF 
Regulation, all the above mentioned needs remain fully relevant, and the EU financial 
intervention  to ensure they are adequately covered has to be confirmed, in the interest of all 
European citizens.  
                                                            
8 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 113  
9 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 96  
 
14 
 Still, thematic priorities are discussed every year and adjusted to the epidemiological situation 
which is actually prevailing in the context of the annu ally approved Commission work 
programmes: aspects such as the impact on human health, and the potential to generate 
serious economic consequences are taken into consideration.  In this respect, the CFF has 
shown the flexibility to integrate these needs int o the current arrangements, with no need to 
make adjustment in the general provisions laid down in the legal basis. Besides the 
prioritization of animal diseases and plant pests, new specific needs have emerged during the 
very last years, particularly rela ted to the occurrence of new diseases or pests or to their 
unexpected development. The evolution of diseases such as Peste des Petits Ruminants, LSD 
and Sheep Pox diseases, for example, which were previously addresses by emergency 
measures only, has requir ed a more structured support at EU level through the implementation 
of veterinary programmes; the specific list of eligible diseases was integrated accordingly  in 
2016, and those programmes will be implemented in the Member States concerned from 
2018.  This new needs implied specific adjustments in the area of official controls too, where 
additional EURLs were created in 2016 for each of the three animal diseases  mentioned 
above. The BTSF initiative has also proven flexibility to respond to new needs, notably 
during crisis events, when it has contributed to both prevention and crises -preparedness. A 
concrete example is the BTSF training organised in response to th e African Swine Fever or to 
the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa  emergency, as well as the training on foodborne 
outbreak investigations, which was organised during the three years considered and focused 
on subjects such as outbreak preparedness, outbrea k management, and crisis communication, 
addressing national teams of public health, veterinary and phytosanitary experts and food 
safety authorities.  
 
 
5.2. Effectiveness  
Effectiveness had questions on the extent to which the general and specific CFF objectives  
were achieved and on the impact of the CFF measures implemented.  
 
EQ5.   “To which extent have the specific objectives been attained by the CFF? Which 
factors influenced the results achieved?”  
The implementation of veterinary measures represents the large st part of the expenditure 
under the CFF budget, with the veterinary programmes alone exceeding 75% of the total 
spending in the three years under evaluation. This budgetary relevance is also reflected in the 
fact that 12 out of the 21 technical indicators  monitored in this context relate to this spending 
area.10 The chosen indicators focus on the priority animal diseases and zoonoses; they allow 
to monitor the geographical evolution of the EU areas which are free from specific animal 
diseases, and to measur e technical parameters such as the prevalence, the incidence and the 
number of cases. The analysis of these indicators for the period 2014 -2016 reveals a positive 
epidemiological trend for all priority diseases receiving EU financial support under the 
veterinary programmes, with a growing number of Member States or regions becoming free 
                                                            
10 See Annex 4  
 
15 
 from animal diseases, and an overall reduction in all monitored parameters. A good example 
is the increased number of Member States free from bovine brucellosis: at the end of 2016, 
two out of the five Member States having a EU co -funded programme during the period 
considered, became free of this diseases; in the remaining three Member States, the main 
performance indicator, monitoring the evolution of herd prevalence, has de creased by 25% 
over the same period, showing a very positive trend towards the complete eradication of the 
disease. Among the most remarkable successes, the eradication of several diseases in many 
Member States, as in the case of Bovine Spongiform Encephal opathy (BSE) in cattle, a 
disease transmissible to humans from the consumption of contaminated beef products. The 
long-term EU co -financed measures led to a drop in BSE cases from more than 2000 in 2001 
to only 2 cases in 2016.11 The EU response to the BSE crises restored consumer confidence: 
beef consumption had dropped by up to 40% in late 2000, forcing prices steeply downward 
and requiring huge expenditure on market support measures at EU level.12 Another significant 
example is represented by the EU programmes addressing Rabies: this disease has been 
almost eradicated in the EU in wildlife (complete eradication is expected by 2020) and the 
number of cases has fallen from 80 in 2014 to only 18 in 201613, hugely reducing a significa nt 
risk to health and enabling free movement of cats and dogs within the EU.  Considering a 
period longer than the evaluation timeframe, another success as well as the reduction of cases 
of human salmonellosis, dropped by 10% from 2010 to 2015 (latest avail able data).  However, 
it should be noted that there are still some areas where the situation has not improved as 
expected, such as the cases of bovine tuberculosis (in 1 Member State out of the 5 with a EU 
co-funded programme) and ovine and caprine brucello sis (in 1 Member State and in a few 
regions of another Member State out of 6 with EU co -funded programmes).  
The implementation of emergency measures in the occurrence of veterinary disease outbreaks 
also plays a key role in achieving a higher animal health  status in the EU, as well as to protect 
the EU economy from a serious and large -scale veterinary crisis. Thanks to early detection 
and to immediate application of EU co -funded emergency measures, all recent epidemics 
have been successfully contained, and major economic consequences - such as trade 
restrictions and the block of exports - have been avoided. A recent example is the fight against 
the epidemic of LSD. In 2016, this disease affected seven countries in the South East Europe, 
including Greece, Bul garia and the Balkan region. All these countries resorted to mass 
vaccination with the support of a EU LSD vaccine bank, which was set up before the 
occurrence of the disease in the Union territory to be immediately used in case of emergency. 
This vaccinat ion campaign resulted in the successful containment of the spread of the disease: 
no further Member States were affected, and the disease has not reoccurred in the vaccinated 
area.  
While the EU financial support for the implementation of plant health emergency measures 
has been provided for many years, the funding of plant health surveys programmes is still at 
an initial phase. Even if the EU Members States have welcomed their introd uction through the 
                                                            
11 Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States  
12 http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/vetenfinf/bse/14Atkinson.html  
13 Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States  
 
16 
 CFF Regulation, their evaluation remains complicated due to the extremely limited timeframe 
available and the absence of predecessor measures.  
To follow up the presence of pests into the Union territory and the results obtained as effect  of 
the implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures, the Commission monitors the 
number of cases for a selection of priority pests, including some devastating plant bacterium 
such as the Xylella fastidiosa . The achievement of the eradication objecti ve is more 
complicated than in the animal health area, as in most cases eradication of plant pests is not 
feasible, due to population dynamics and lifecycle of pests and their vectors present in forests, 
parks and plantations. However, in cases eradication  is not considered a feasible option, a 
containment approach is still an effective approach in order to prevent further spread of the 
pest into the rest of the Union territory. This is the case, instead, for the Pinewood Nematode, 
detected in 1999 in Portu gal, where EU financial support is in place to finally contain, since 
2014, its further spread to neighbouring Member States.14 A similar situation concerns Xylella 
fastidiosa,  which has affected the olives in a restricted part of an Italian region: in this  case 
too, the implementation of a number of protective measures has led to the successful 
containment of this pest in a specific part of Apulia region.15 
The EU financial support to the official controls system addresses two major instruments, and 
covers 1 00% of the eligible costs incurred: the testing activities carried out by the network of 
43 EURLs, and the trainings provided in a number of food safety priority areas by both the 
EURLs, and in the context of the BTSF initiative. Four operational indicator s have been 
developed to monitor their contribution to ensuring the effective implementation of and the 
compliance with the Union rules in the areas covered by the CFF.  
The EURLs have contributed, inter -alia, to the continuous update of diagnostic tools fo r the 
timely identification of pathogens. This is critical to uniform implementation of controls 
throughout the EU as it ensures confidence in the reliability of test results and a level 
competitive playing field. An average success rate of 85% by the part icipating laboratories in 
the proficiency tests performed by the EURLs network shows the successful application of 
testing methods of reference laboratories throughout the EU. Through continuous training, 
with an annual workshop organised by each EURL, Nat ional Reference Laboratories (NRLs) 
involved in the official controls system could upgrade their expertise. The average satisfaction 
rate of participants, as regards the training contents, was above 87%.  
The BTSF training initiative has covered, for the th ree years considered, 52 topics of key 
importance for the CFF areas. The programme was considered to be satisfactory by the 
participants, in both the EU Member States and in third countries, with a satisfaction rate 
above 90% for all years considered. Also  the success rate of the tests performed by the 
participants after the training is very high, at about 88%. The trainings have provided support 
to a common understanding across Member States of their obligations and how best to 
enforce relevant EU legislat ion. The BTSF programme was considered the by Member State 
competent authorities to be helpful in responding to new needs, notably during crisis events, 
                                                            
14 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012D0535 -20170310  
15 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/ ?uri=CELEX:02015D0789 -20160514  
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/legislation/emergency_measures/xylella -
fastidiosa/latest -developments_en  
 
17 
 when it contributed to both prevention and crises -preparedness.16 A concrete example is the 
BTSF trainin g on foodborne outbreak investigations, which was organised during all three 
years considered and focused on subjects such as outbreak preparedness, outbreak 
management, and crisis communication, addressing national teams of public health, veterinary 
and f ood safety authorities.17 A particularly appreciated BTSF training on plant health was 
also organised for the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa  together with EU Member States and 
Mediterranean non -EU Member States with the aim to transfer knowledge on prev ention 
activities, early detection, management and control of outbreaks.    
The achievement of the food safety objective needs to be presented from an integrated 
perspective, being a horizontal goal resulting from the combination of all measures described 
above. Animal health, plant health, and official control activities all contribute to having a 
high level of safety of food and of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens. 
The safety of food requires safe and healthy animals, plants and  a high -standard system of 
controls. There is therefore a direct and binding link with the achievement of a high level of 
animal health, plant health and official controls to meet this requirement.  
 
The main factors influencing the overall achievement of the CFF objectives relates to both 
financial and technical aspects. Budget limitations in some Members States, especially those 
struggling with economic crisis or other constraints, may limit or delay the implementation of 
measures necessary to contain the  outbreak of a disease. Therefore, the EU financial 
contribution supports the EU crisis -management system in the event of an outbreak . The 
Union coordination also facilitates the process of prioritisation, which would be extremely 
difficult to address at i ndividual Member States level. The key importance of the EU 
governance in the veterinary area is confirmed by a performance audit conducted by the Court 
of Auditors18, whose report was published in April 2016. The Report also acknowledged the 
good design an d proper implementation of animal health programmes co -financed at EU 
level, highlighting that both the Commission and the Member States performed particularly 
well in this framework.  
A third major factor, which also complements the EU coordination in the  CFF area, is the 
continuous and strict dialogue between the Commission and the Member States, from the 
design of the measures to their actual implementation. This cooperation takes place in 
institutional fora, like the Standing Committee on Plants, Animal s, Food and Feed or ad hoc 
working groups, but also through the constant informal communication between the 
commission' services and the national competent authorities.  
A concrete example of the contribution of the three horizontal aspects mentioned above to the 
achievement of the CFF objectives is the EU crisis -preparedness and management system in 
the event of an outbreak. When a disease is suspected or confirmed, a number of prevention 
and control actions are immediately put in place under to address the  emergency measures, 
including the temporary closing of borders and the regionalisation of the disease. For the 
covered diseases (namely Foot -and-Mouth disease (FMD), Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and 
                                                            
16 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pag e 76  
17 Better Training for safer Food Annual Reports 2014 and 2015  
18 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf  
 
18 
 LSD), a EU vaccine bank is also available and accessible to all Member States, with an 
emergency stock of vaccines to be immediately used in the areas affected or at risk. The 
functioning of such intervention system requires a central level of management and 
coordination of activities between the Member States, complemented by a strict cooperation 
of those member States with the European Commission, but also the commitment of 
significant financial resources that would not be possible without the EU budget support.  
 
EQ6.  What has been the impact achieved by EU fi nancial support in terms of food safety, 
animal health, plant health and official controls?  
The CFF Regulation has provided financial support to the measures addressing the 
achievement of the specific objectives in this area, namely the overall improvement  of the 
animal and plant health status in the EU, as well as of food safety and public health. As 
illustrated by the evolution of the technical aspects monitored through the operational 
indicators, as illustrated in the previous section, positive progress have been made in all areas 
covered by the CFF regulation, perfectly in line with the targets discussed by the Commission 
with the technical experts from the Member States19. The EU territory is today a safer place, 
where the prevention and protection syste m have proven to work properly and where the 
safety and quality of food respect the highest international standards. The human cases due to 
zoonotic diseases have been progressively reducing over the years, and both the frequency 
and the severity of animal , plant, and food crises have decreased. No large scale outbreaks 
have occurred for a decade, and all emergencies have been successfully contained and put 
under control. In the plant health areas, EU funded programmes on surveys have permitted the 
early de tection of new pests on the Union territory, allowing to actively contain some pests to 
the original outbreak areas (e.g. Pinewood nematode in Portugal) while minimising the risk of 
further spread into the Union territory.  
 
EQ7.  To what extent has the sett ing of CFF thematic priorities for Union financial support 
contributed to the achievement of the specific objectives?”  
Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists a number of thematic priorities for the implementation 
of veterinary programmes and of phytosanita ry survey programmes. Those overarching 
priorities, including inter -alia the impact on human health and the potential to generate serious 
economic consequences, are discussed every year in the context of the preparation of the 
Commission work programmes. I n the light of the major risks identified and on the 
epidemiological situation which is actually prevailing, priority animal diseases and plant pests 
are identified accordingly. This system has proven to be flexible enough to respond to the 
main challenges  and the more immediate risks for the EU. The list of animal diseases eligible 
for EU financial support, for example, has been integrated in order to address the emergence 
of new epidemiological needs (as in the cases of LSD) and the allocation of the avai lable 
financial resources could be oriented towards the most significant priorities. The multi -annual 
                                                            
19 See Annex 4  
 
19 
 Commission work programmes covering 2015 and 2016, identified 3 categories; Group 1, for 
example, listed the diseases having an impact on both human and a nimal health. Priorities 
have been revised in the context of the recently adopted work programme for the period 2018 -
2020, with 4 categories identified, and where Group 1 addresses the major impact on animal 
health and trade. This flexible system ensures t hat the specific objectives laid down in the 
CFF Regulation are pursued and that the specific measures implemented to achieve them 
comply with the more recent development and needs in this area.  
 
EQ8.  To what extent has the implementation of measures co -financed under the CFF 
contributed to a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market and to the 
competitiveness of the agri -food industry at global level?  
According to the last EUROSTAT data, in 2015, the output of the whole agri -food industry in 
the EU is estimated at more than EUR 410 billion, representing the largest manufacturing 
sector in Europe and a leading player worldwide. Overall, this sector provides some 44 
million jobs in the EU, of which 22 million people are employed in farms.  
The competitiveness of the European food productions depends on their reputation, with the 
EU food safety budget playing a crucial role in contributing to the safety and quality of 
European food products.  All issues relating to food and to food production ar e actually a 
concern for each single EU citizen: all Europeans expect to eat quality food, produced with 
the highest safety standards and under ethical conditions. It is a matter of fact that healthy 
food comes from healthy animals and plants. All European  consumers therefore expect the 
EU to protect them and their interests by guaranteeing adequate interventions and controls all 
along the food chain.  
In 2015, the EU financial contribution for all the food safety measures has amounted to some 
EUR 250 millio n, notably 0,06 % of the output value of the food industry. The size of the EU 
food safety budget is therefore limited compared to the scale of the economic sector 
concerned; this relatively low financial support for food safety provided under the CFF 
supp orted the EU legal food and feed framework, which ensures the functioning of the 
internal market leading to a positive impact on the competitiveness of the EU’s agri -food 
industry at international level.  
  
5.3. Efficiency  
The efficiency section included questions on the relationship between resources employed and 
results achieved, taking into account the financial procedures in place, as well as their 
contribution to the simplification and rationalisation in the areas covered by the CFF.  
EQ9.  To what extent has the relationship between resources employed and results achieved 
been efficient? Could the same results have been achieved with fewer resources?  
 
20 
 The improvement of the animal health status is accompanied by a progressive reduction of the 
financi al resources needed in the area, that in the specific case of veterinary programmes 
dropped by 11 million euro over the three -year period under evaluation.  
Less predictable is the spending for emergency measures, which varies from one year to the 
other as  a consequence of factors difficult to anticipate and to control, including climate 
change and the globalisation of vectors, as well as the cyclical reoccurrence of some endemic 
diseases.  
The already -mentioned special report from the Court of Auditors20, published in April 2016, 
considers the Commission’s strategy for animal diseases to be sound and well -developed, 
including a good frame work for prioritising budget resources on priority programmes.  
According to its findings, the Member States performed wel l in managing the resources 
provided at EU level to co -fund the CFF measures.  
The implementation of the survey programmes aims to detect the presence of priority pests in 
the EU territory. In this view, an increment of the financial resources is needed and  expected 
over the next years, supporting the objective to increase the coverage of the Union territory by 
those surveys by 2020.  
As in the case of veterinary emergency measures, the spending for phytosanitary emergency 
measures is variable and less predic table. Over the years 2014 -2016, it mostly concerned four 
major pests only: the emergency measures addressing Pinewood nematode and Xylella 
fastidiosa, together with Anoplophora glabripennis and Pomacea insularum, were responsible 
for almost all payments ( 91%). For these emergencies, the EU has provided financial support 
to early detect new outbreaks and to prevent their further spread into the Union territory.  
The EURLs' activities and the BTSF initiative are financed at 100% by the EU, and each have 
an an nual cost of about 15 million euro for the food safety budget. This limited cost has 
nevertheless allowed the EURLs to perform high -level testing activities and to train annually 
hundreds of NRLs, while in the context of the BTSF, some 6000 officials of na tional 
competent authorities involved in official controls were trained every year. These current 
funding arrangements, which fully cover the eligible costs, have proven to be a correct 
approach in motivating the Member States to carry out EU tasks.  
For all these measures, Table 2 illustrates that the amounts committed during the period under 
evaluation were substantially in line with the forecasted budget.  The good results achieved in 
implementing the CFF budget show that the forecast budget for the con cerned years was 
appropriate to cover the different needs. Still, it is very unlikely that the same results could 
have been achieved with fewer financial resources, for three main aspects already presented in 
the previous sections.  
Firstly, for the long -term nature of many CFF measures, namely eradication activities, which 
represent a very large share of the food safety budget: considering that the final targets are 
most of the time achieved after several years of implementation, the specific spending in th ese 
area needs to be confirmed during a long period of time without interruptions, both to ensure 
                                                            
20 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf  
 
21 
 continuity with past activities and to avoid jeopardising mid -term achievements.21 Over the 
three years considered, a considerable part of the CFF budget was i nvested in those kind of 
activities, for example for veterinary programmes addressing the eradication of Bovine 
Tuberculosis, or the surveillance of Avian Influenza.  
Secondly, the continuous emergence of new challenges affecting the safety of food, as well  as 
the health of animal and plants, requires that the specific budget is both flexible and sound 
enough to guarantee that the changing needs in this area are addressed properly and timely.22  
Third aspect, the fact that food crises, as well as outbreaks fr om animal diseases or plant pests 
are very difficult to anticipate, and tend to cyclically occur or re -occur affecting the EU 
territory. Those emergency situations might require significant financial resources, as proved 
by the past crises of FMD and swine  fevers23. 
EQ10.  Do the financial procedures in place ensure a swift and resource -saving decision -
making process and thus a quick implementation of the interventions? If there are 
shortcomings what are the reasons for this?   
Overall, there are no major lim itations and shortcomings for an efficient resource -saving 
decision -making process and quick implementation, especially in emergency situations. When 
outbreaks of animal diseases or plant pests occur, the requested technical measures to 
eradicate or to con tain them are implemented immediately, concurrently with the financial 
procedure, which do not interfere with an efficient decision making progress. Financial 
commitments are made quickly and also payments to the Member State are timely.24 
EURLs can adapt q uickly to urgent needs25, for example to provide technical assistance and 
diagnostic tools or vaccines. Representative from the ASF EURL provided urgent technical 
assistance to the Member States affected by the first outbreaks of ASF in 2014, in the 
framewo rk of the Community Veterinary Emergency Team (CVET) tasks. Besides, the ASF 
EURL provided diagnostic tools to the neighbouring countries, to support them in the early 
detection of the disease.  
In relation to BTSF programmes,26 quick adjustment of training subjects once awarded is 
quite difficult.  However, the possibility to introduce additional training has been used, for 
example in the case of ASF when this became an urgent threat 2015 -2016.  
EQ11. To what extent has the entry into force of the CFF, which merges all measures in one 
single regulation, contributed to the simplification and rationalisation of the Union co -
financing in the food chain area?   
                                                            
21 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 15  
22 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pages 12 -13, 21, 
56, 63 -68, 82, 148  
23 Mid-term evaluation of Regu lation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 59  
24 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 117  
25 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting,  2017), page 127  
26 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 127  
 
22 
 The entry into force of the CFF Regulation provided with a modernised financial framework 
in the food cha in area, introducing a number of adjustments aimed at simplifying and 
rationalising the pre -existing legislation. Particularly, the CFF Regulation:  
 adapted the food safety expenditure to the structure of the EU budget 2014 -2020, where 
its budget lines are not part of the AGRI budget any longer, but belong to Heading III 
"Security and citizenship";  
 simplified the previous legal framework, over -complex and often out -of-date, by replacing 
it with a single piece of legislation covering the whole food and feed a rea; 
 aligned the financial tools used in these spending area to the new Financial Regulation, 
especially by introducing some adjustments concerning Title VI, on grants;  
 harmonised the procedures in the phytosanitary and veterinary fields;  
 standardised the funding rates, providing only three reimbursement rates (50%, 75%, 
100%) applicable under specific conditions, instead of the manifold and unclear funding 
rated used for predecessor measures;  
 clearly listed measures and costs eligible for EU co -financing;  
 introduced a more transparent division of responsibilities between the Commission and 
the Member States;  
 in its Annex III, lays down priorities for veterinary and phytosanitary programmes, to be 
adjusted annually or multi -annually.  
The implementation of un it costs and ceilings in veterinary programmes is also an example of 
simplification and rationalisation of the system. It contributes to a lower administrative 
burden for the Commission as well as for the Member States, facilitating the requests for 
fundin g and for reimbursements. It currently covers about 50% of the eligible costs and a 
further revision of the system is ongoing, in view of extending it to other CFF spending 
measures.  
Current reporting requirements were in some cases considered disproportio nate by some 
Member States, namely for smallest veterinary programmes and emergency measures. 
However, the principles of transparency and accountability require that a proper justification 
is given for the way public money is spent, even if the size of the  budget concerned is limited. 
Therefore, some administrative constrains for managing financial files cannot be avoided, in 
the interest of all EU citizens.  
5.4. Coherence  
Coherence was about the consistency of the EU spending for food and feed measures with the 
political priorities in the food safety area.  
EQ12.  To what extent was the EU spending for food and feed measures consistent with the 
political priorities in the food safety area?  
The food safety political priorities are scattered across the sectorial  legislation in each area 
covered by the CFF Regulation, and then confirmed in the CFF itself. In this context, the CFF 
Regulation acts as a very technical piece of legislation, where eligible measures and costs for 
each spending area are formally listed i n specific sections. This bounds the possibility to 
 
23 
 provide financial support to a range of measures which is quite substantial, but nevertheless 
clear and limited. Those measures are conceived to explicitly address the political priorities in 
the areas co vered by the CFF, mostly as a result of the long -term experience of the EU 
spending in the food safety area. In addition, the CFF offers the possibility for providing 
financial support to additional non -listed measures, in exceptional and duly justified ca ses. To 
date, no request in this sense has come from any Member State, as a confirmation of a 
spending system which has proved to be fully consistent with the overall political priorities in 
this domain and to properly respond to the overarching food safet y needs at both EU and 
national level.  
The absence of any pressure and not even any proposal towards the co -financing of additional 
measures also confirms the functioning of the complementarity of the CFF Regulation with 
other related EU programmes, with n o extra needs remaining unaddressed by the EU 
intervention. An example of synergy between programmes covering complementary areas 
regards the primary agriculture, and more specifically the interaction between the provision of 
the CFF Regulation and CAP Reg ulation in the event of an outbreak. While the CFF 
addresses eligible direct costs incurred to tackle animal diseases and plant pest, such as the 
compensation to owners, the costs of vaccination, and the slaughtering of animals or the 
culling of trees,  th e CAP has provisions to contribute to covering some indirect costs, such as 
market losses suffered by farmers.  
 
5.5. EU added value  
In order to assess whether the EU financial support for food and feed measures added specific 
value compared to what would have resulted from Member States' intervention only, a 
comparative analysis was conducted.  
 
EQ3.  To which extent has the EU financial support for food and feed measures added 
specific value to what would have resulted from Member State‘s intervention only?  
The achievement of a higher animal health status was possible thanks to both the technical 
and financial support provided by the EU to the Member States. On the one hand, budgets of 
Members States alone, especially of those struggling with economic crisis or other 
constraints, have difficulties to secure appropriate financial resources to respond to the 
combination of present and potential challenges. On the other hand, the variety of measures to 
put in place to tackle animal diseases requires a centralised  management system in order to 
properly coordinate and organise the implementation of specific actions in the Member States. 
The EU crisis -management system in the event of an outbreak is an excellent example of the 
added value provided by the EU co -financ ing in this area. When a disease is suspected or 
confirmed, a number of prevention and control actions are immediately put in place under the 
emergency measures system, including the temporary closing of borders and the 
regionalisation of the disease. A go od example of EU governance and coordination is the 
recent management at EU level of the African swine fever outbreak, which reached the EU 
from Russia in 2014. Since the very early stages of the epidemics - for which no vaccine is 
 
24 
 available - the Commissi on have proactively promoted a common strategy amongst affected 
Member States, neighbouring third countries and bordering Member States at risk. In 
particular, the Commission has given technical and financial support, providing trainings and 
ad-hoc support ing material in order to enhance their diagnostic capabilities. This coordinated 
action resulted in the containment of the disease and has limited costs for both the EU and the 
national budgets. It has also avoided major trade disruption, both within the E U and with non -
EU countries. For all programmes, the EU co -funding adds value to the situation in which 
only national funding would apply.  
As in the case of animal health, the EU intervention also supports the management of plant 
health outbreaks, where th e EU provides the financial contribution needed at Member State 
level to implement emergency measures.  
Moreover, the Union support facilitates the coordination of phytosanitary surveillance 
activities, ensuring their uniform implementation in all Member St ates. 
The EU added value provided by the EURLs activities and the BTSF programmes is linked to 
the nature of their activities: the network of laboratories ensures that all EU Member States 
work within a consistent and uniform regulatory framework and the E U training programme 
promotes a common approach towards the implementation of EU legislation. This 
contribution towards the harmonisation of rules at Union level and the sharing of knowledge 
and expertise in the food safety and related areas is a main exam ple of positive interaction 
within the EU, which could not be achieved through isolated efforts at national level and 
without the EU financial support.  
 
EQ4.  What would be the most likely consequence of stopping or withdrawing the EU co -
financing of the me asures covered by the CFF?  
The most likely consequence of withdrawing the CFF financial support would be that many 
measures would not be implemented any longer, especially in Member States experiencing 
budgetary restrictions27. Efforts made to ensure food safety, animal and plant health would 
therefore be reduced, putting at risk the current status as well as the past achievements in 
these areas. In the case of trans -boundary diseases and pests, even the continuation of the CFF 
activities in some Member Sta te managing to confirm the financial resources in this area 
would be compromised.  
Due to the EU dimension of the activities carried out in the framework of the EURLs and of 
BTSF and of their objectives, those measures would cease completely should Union fu nding 
be stopped.28  
On top of that, in the event of a food crisis, or of large -scale outbreaks from either animal 
diseases or plant pests, the economic impact on the national public budgets and on the 
economic sector concerned might be severe. Many studies  have already addressed the topic of 
the costs of food crises in the EU, especially as concerns some animal diseases whose 
                                                            
27 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 88 -89 
28 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation  (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 92 -93, 
 
25 
 outbreaks have largely affected our productions over the last decades. FMD is an illustrative 
example of disease which might affect s everely the agri -food sector and on the European 
economy as a whole. To give an idea of the scale of the economic impact of such disease, we 
can refer to a study focused on the outbreak occurred in UK in 2001 (Economic costs of the 
FMD outbreak in the Unit ed Kingdom in 2001 (Thompson, 2002)), according to which the 
overall costs on agricultural producers, food industry, consumers and (national) public sector 
can be estimated at some £ 3,125 billion. For this crisis, the EU allocated about € 571 million 
to implement emergency measures in UK only. The intervention in the event of a new large -
scale FMD outbreak would require the emergency vaccination of the animal population at 
risk. A massive vaccination campaign at an average current cost of €2.5 per dose (in cluding 
vaccination costs) to be inoculated twice per year would need to be conducted; considering an 
official animal population of some 340 million heads (cattle, pigs, sheep and goat), the 
potential burden of this intervention (up to 1.7 billion euro) wo uld severely threaten both the 
national budgets. In addition, a large number of animals might be slaughtered. Besides these 
direct costs, the impact on both trade and the internal market is to be taken into consideration. 
The block of exports and of the in ternal movements of food and live animals would hit the 
producers as well as the whole supply chain, endangering the existence of the largest 
manufacturing sector in Europe, mostly made of SMEs. Just to give some figures, according 
to the 2015 EUROSTAT dat a, the value of export of food and live animals touched 82 billion 
euro. As concerns intra -EU trade, 40 million animals (considering cattle, pigs, sheep and 
goats only) were traded within the EU in 2015. This possible scenario might cause the fallout 
of th e sector or the definitive collapse of its weakest segments, representing a dramatic loss 
for the competitiveness of the EU agri -food productions and of the EU economy as a whole.  
 
6. CONCLUSIONS  
Based on the analysis performed, it can be concluded that the CFF Regulation is functioning 
well in supporting the food and feed policy.  
Findings indicated that, to a great extent, the CFF objectives are relevant  in addressing the 
needs within the food chain, ensuring a high status of human, animal and plant health, and 
therefore supporting the safety of the EU food products. The EU funding in this area supports 
the legal food and feed framework in protecting more than 500 million of European 
consumers and facilitating the functioning of agri -food supply chains. The c ompetitive 
position of this sector is supported by high food safety standards, which contribute to a global 
perception of high quality European products. The CFF has been proven to be flexible to 
address new needs for co -financing, especially in the emerge nce or re -emergence of outbreaks 
from animal diseases such as Avian influenza, LSD, or emerging risks in plant health like 
Xylella phastidiosa.  
The majority of the activities covered by the CFF proved to be effective  in achieving the CFF 
objectives, and sh owed progress in the technical operational indicators used to monitor the 
CFF measures implemented. The consultation showed a large appreciation of the EU financial 
contribution especially by the CFF direct beneficiaries, who consider both the financial an d 
technical support provided under the CFF to be adequate and to effectively support the 
implementation of the food chain measures.  
 
26 
 In relation to efficiency  it can be concluded that the procedures in place allow for adequate 
prioritising of CFF the finan cial resources and Member States manage the resources well. 
Still, as previously explained, the absence of cost -effectiveness analysis in the CFF area limits 
the possibility to demonstrate the extent of the relationship between resources employed and 
resul ts achieved. As recommended by the Court of Auditors in its previously mentioned 
performance audit - the Commission is working to develop a cost -effectiveness methodology 
to be implemented in this area, in order to make the efficiency analysis more robust.  As 
acknowledged by the Court, this kind of analysis is difficult to determine, due to the current 
lack of available models and to the absence of specific economic indicators at international 
level. The possibility to develop such methodology, including a set of cost -effectiveness 
indicators covering all CFF spending areas, is currently being investigated by the Commission 
in view of the ex -post evaluation of the CFF Regulation, to be conducted by June 2022.  
EU spending for food and feed measures is conside red to be largely coherent  with the 
political priorities in the food safety area, and a positive assessment was also done on its 
complementarity with other related EU programmes, especially the CAP Regulation.  
The CFF has been shown to clearly contribute t o achieving and supporting EU added value . 
Member States benefit from the prioritised and targeted implementation of EU co -funded 
activities, especially for emergency, eradication, control and monitoring measures for animal 
diseases and plant pest througho ut the Union. The financial solidarity that the CFF provides 
enables Member States to take required actions according to their interests. Otherwise these 
may have been beyond the financial and operational capacity of an individual Member State. 
The CFF ena bles harmonised and robust controls, which satisfy an important need with 
respect to an effective food safety policy. The findings from the desk study, relevant 
stakeholders in questionnaires, interviews, and case studies, confirm that the measures co -
financed by the CFF strongly contribute to creating EU added value. The added value goes 
beyond what individual Member States could achieve by implementing national measures 
without EU support.  
 
Overall, all activities receiving EU financial support in this a rea have proven to serve the CFF 
Regulation general and specific objectives, namely the improvement of human, animal and 
plant health, as well as the overall Commission’s priorities, including the functioning of an 
effective internal market and the support  to trade with non -EU countries.  
In recent years substantial progress has been made on most of the 21 operational indicators 
used to monitor the progress and measure the outcome of the CFF implementation.  
The EU framework on food safety, animal and plant health has been recognised as uniform 
and consistent in its application and enforcement in all the Member States. This ensures in 
turn that both citizens and businesses are confident that this framework is fair and effective in 
promoting high safety standa rds in a key sector of the EU economy. The EU investment in 
surveillance, disease and pest control and eradication, provides the infrastructure on which the 
safety and trade in the entire food chain is based. The activities funded under the CFF 
Regulation contribute to an EU which is safe and secure, prosperous and sustainable, social, 
and stronger on the global scene.  
  
 
27 
 ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATIO N  
The evaluation was led by Directorate -General for Health and Food safety (DG SANTE). It is 
included in the Agenda Planning with the reference 2016/SANTE/142.  
The evaluation was supported by an external and independent evaluator, under a service 
contract. The service contract has been implemented via a Framework Contract in accordance 
to the F inancial Rules Applicable to the General Budget of the Union29 and its Rules of 
Application30. 
The evaluation Roadmap was adopted in July 201631. 
An Inter -service Steering Group (ISG) including staff from DG SANTE, from the Secretariat -
General (SG) and from the Directorates -General for Budget (BUDG), for Agriculture and 
Rural Development (AGRI), and for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE), was established 
in April 2016. The ISG met in 5 occasions: to prepare the Roadmap (April 2016), to have a 
kick-off discussion with the external evaluator in October 2015, to discuss the Inception 
Report in November 2016, to discuss the interim report in February 2017, to discuss the draft 
final report in May 2017. Extensive correspondence between the Steering Committee 
members was held in  between the meetings to follow -up on the evaluation.  
The final report was submitted in June 2017.  
The evaluation was not submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.  
The evidence base used to conduct the mid -term evaluation of the CFF Regulation included:  
- Technical and financial reports prepared and submitted by the CFF beneficiaries on 
the implementation of the CFF measures.  
- The consultation of some 170 stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in the 
implementation of CFF.  
- 12 cases studies.  
- A literatu re review of studies, reports, evaluations, audits and other documents 
relevant in the context of the CFF evaluation.  
Together, the above evidence base provides the evaluation with a valid and rounded set of 
data covering the main aspects of the CFF evalua tion including efficiency, effectiveness, 
relevance, coherence and added value.  
 
  
                                                            
29 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0966 -20160101 &from=EN  
30 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R1268 -20160101&from=EN  
31 http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_sante_142_evaluation_cff_en.pdf   
 
28 
 ANNEX 2 – STAKEHOLDERS ' CONSULTATION  
Three methods of stakeholder consultation have been employed for the evaluation:  
1. Open public consultation  
2. Targeted stakeholder consult ation with specific questionnaires  
3. Targeted stakeholder interviews  
Each of these is described in the following sections.  
- Open public consultation  
An open public consultation of all interested parties was conducted using the European 
Commission ‘Public consultations’ website (replacing the ‘Your Voice in Europe’ website) 
and the DG SANTE ‘Consultations and feedback’ web page.  
The consultation took p lace from 16 December 2016 until 17 March 2017. A consultation 
questionnaire was prepared in English, discussed and agreed with DG SANTE and published 
on the Commission website. After the twelve -week consultation, five replies were submitted 
on this.  
- Targe ted stakeholder consultation  
Targeted questionnaire surveys have been used to acquire specific information from particular 
target groups. The stakeholders were identified by the stakeholder mapping exercise.  
Targeted questionnaires in English have been de veloped for the following groups:  
1. Competent authorities (CAs) in Member States, stakeholders linked to the industry 
(including farmers organisations, veterinary organisations), EU and national 
associations, international organisations and NGOs.  
2. EURL stak eholders  
3. Better Training for Safer Food stakeholders  
The questionnaires were limited in the number of questions and restricted in allowing open 
responses. As far as possible, the focus was on closed questions, numbering and ranges. Some 
open questions were  used to provide specific comments that cannot easily be captured by 
closed questions. Open questions were also aimed at gaining insight (i.e. explanations, 
motivations) on why respondents provided certain answers to specific closed questions. In 
some case s, respondents were asked to support their answers by providing evidence (there 
was also a possibility to upload documents as evidence).  
The questionnaires include an introduction describing the subject and providing information 
on matters such as transparency and confidentiality (EU Transparency Initiative, including the 
option to register in the Transparency Register), protection of perso nal data and links to 
relevant reference documents.  
 
29 
 The questionnaire for group 1 had a function that presented selected questions to individual 
respondents on the basis of their role, involvement and expertise. Respondents were asked to 
identify their in dividual characteristics and the questions were filtered accordingly. This 
enabled the use of a general questionnaire for a range of different respondents.  
In order to assess the extent to which the CFF has succeeded in achieving its objectives, 
statement s were posed that needed to be answered on a 4 -point or 5 -point judgement scale.  
The targeted respondents received a personalised email, including a link to the online 
questionnaire and an introduction describing the background and the importance of the 
evaluation. A Letter of Recommendation provided by DG SANTE was attached to the email. 
Two reminders were sent. The deadline for submission was extended by three weeks beyond 
the planned schedule.  
Table 4  shows the number of invited respondents, the number of responses and the response 
rate.   
Overall, a high average response of 78  % was realised for the invited stakeholder 
questionnaires, while there were only five responses to the open consultation.  
Table 4. Number of respondents approached to complete que stionnaires and response 
rates  
Respondents  Open 
consultation  Targeted online questionnaires  
CAs and 
stakeholders  EURLs  BTSF  
Number 
approached  Public, open to 
all 81 45 87 
Number of 
responses  5 58 34 + 6*  69 
Response rate  Not applicable  72 %  88 %  79 %  
* The six EURLs with responsibilities regarding food and feed safety were approached and all 
responded  
- Targeted stakeholder interviews  
On the basis of the literature review and the on -line survey, topics were selected for 
interviews with representatives of the European Commission (DG SANTE and DG AGRI), 
and with selected stakeholders (competent authorities, industry representatives, targe ted 
NGOs) in a number of Member States.  
In-depth interviews were carried out by team members using an interview guide to facilitate 
uniformity in the way questions are addressed and are answered (avoiding interviewer bias). 
The aim of the interviews was t o identify achievements, good practices, problems and 
 
30 
 challenges regarding implementation of the CFF Regulation. The main purpose of the 
interviews was to fill information gaps that remained after the other stakeholder consultations. 
Interview notes were s ent to the interviewee for conformation.  
Based on the assessment of the results from the questionnaires, ten stakeholders were 
identified for interview. Table 5  provides a list of stakeholders who were interviewed, 
including a short motivation and example  of questions expressing the key interest for 
information from the interviewees. Complete information is available in Appendix D to the 
external evaluation study supporting the Mid -term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 
652/2014.  
Table 5. List of main stak eholders interviewed  
Stakeholders  Reasons  Main issues  
UK (CVO & 
CPHO)  Key Member States have not 
answered the questionnaire  Total questionnaire by phone;  
Unit costs and ceilings;  
Administrative burden  
European 
Professional 
Beekeeping 
Association  A negative reaction to CFF 
in questionnaire  What doesn’t  function well?  
Why?  
How to solve?  
Greece Competent 
Authority  A positive reaction to CFF 
in questionnaire  Why does it function well?  
What can we learn?  
Unit costs and ceilings;  
Administrative burden  
DG SANTE  CFF Regulation  Choice process with respect to 
priorities;  
Interaction with Member States 
(bargaining, steering);  
Strengths   and weaknesses;  
Cost-effectiveness evaluation;  
Unit costs and ceilings;  
Administrative burden;  
Options for improvement;  
 
31 
 NPPO, the 
Netherlands  EU added value  Why no added value in your opinion?  
How can this be changed?  
Copa Cogeca,  Important stakeholder  Discussion about the letter sent instead 
of the questionnaire;  
Functioning of single market;  
Plant health issues  
Plant health and 
small programmes  Administrative burden  Possible solutions  
DG AGRI  Economic impacts,  
animal and plant health  
complementary regulation  Proper functioning of the market;  
Competitiveness (static and dynamic 
impacts);  
Coherence with CAP;  
Indicators and input/output ratios  
Coherence (more in -depth);  
Check if the identified  incoherence are 
correct;  
Co-operation between DG AGRI  & 
DG SANTE on animal and plant health  
  
 
32 
 ANNEX 3 – METHODOLOGY APPLIED  
The methodology used for the mid -term evaluation of the CFF Regulation follows the 
Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines32 and accompanying Toolbox33.  
To answer the evaluation questions, a comprehensive set of data covering all CFF spending 
areas was used as evidence base.  
For data collect ion, the following methods were used:  
1. Desk research  
2. Stakeholder consultation to collect information and opinions from different 
stakeholders (data collected by questionnaires and telephone interviews)  
3. Case studies to collect evidence and experience on targ eted thematic areas  
Desk Research was undertaken using reports available at the start and by literature research of 
scientific publications supplemented with data sources of the Commission, (e.g. budget 
expenditure, operational indicators, trade data, anim al data). In addition, the desk research 
included annual financial and technical reports covering animal and plant health, 
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF, and websites. 
Reports/evaluations/studies, working documents, data on operational technical indicators and 
financial data were made available to the external contractor. Audit and inspection reports 
from the DG SANTE Directorate in charge of Health and Food Audits and Analysis, and from 
the European Food Safety Autho rity (EFSA) were used, as well as documents on food chain 
funding, country submissions, the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed 
(PAFF), and task force presentations and reports.  
Gathering and assessing information from stakeholders was an  important part of the research. 
The aim is to identify, select and weigh the results obtained from different stakeholders in a 
systematic way. For this purpose stakeholder mapping was used.  
Twelve case studies were undertaken covering the following co -financed measures:  
- for food safety: veterinary programmes for salmonellosis and bovine brucellosis;  
- for animal health: veterinary programmes for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, 
ovine and caprine brucellosis, rabies, and BSE;  
- for animal health: emergency measures for highly pathogenic avian influenza;  
- for plant health: surveys concerning pests not known to occur in the Union territory 
and pests considered to be the most dangerous – for citrus tristeza virus and 
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus ; 
                                                            
32 http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm  
33 http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm   
 
33 
 - for plant health: emergency measures for Anoplophora glabripennis ; 
- for official controls: EURL activities for salmonella, mycotoxins, GMOs and 
pesticides; Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) initiative.  
The case studies covered the evaluation period (201 4-2016) and were evaluated against the 
operational technical indicators (see Annex IV to the present SWD) and the identified 
evaluation criteria (relevance, European added value, effectiveness, efficiency and 
coherence). Each case study was carried out in two ways: a general description of co -funding 
and analysis in the EU, and an in -depth description and analysis of the implementation of the 
case in two Member States. The in -depth analysis included interviews with designated 
stakeholders. At least two inte rviews were planned for each case study.  
For food safety and animal health case studies, technical information has been sourced from 
the EU plenary task force and the sub -groups that provide tailored technical assistance to 
Member States. This includes re views of reports and meeting minutes, and interviews with 
members of the plenary committee or sub -groups.  
For plant health and official controls (EURLs and BTSF), the Official Controls Expert Group 
was consulted as it has a dialogue between Member State c ompetent authorities and the 
Commission.  
The criteria applied for selecting the case studies were that they:  
- cover co -funded activities for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 (when applicable);  
- are co -funded in multiple Member States;  
- include Member States wit h high financial awards;  
- have a geographical spread over the EU;  
- contribute information related to the overall evaluation criteria;  
- may have experienced recognised implementation issues;  
- may have strong political or public/industry interest.  
The analysis o f the case studies involved a similar approach as was chosen for the other parts 
of the study. It involved the following steps:  
- Desk study  
- Stakeholder consultation  
- Analysis  
 
 
34 
   
 
35 
 ANNEX 4 – TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL INDICATORS AND THEIR TARGET VALUES FOR 2017  
AND  2020  
Operational technical 
indicator  Baseline 
2013  Last available 
data*  Intermediate 
Target 2017  Final Target 
2020  
Food safety measures  
1.1 Reduction in the 
number of confirmed 
cases of 
salmonellosis in 
humans in Member 
States where a EU 
programme is co-
funded  82921 human 
cases  94625 human 
cases  
(year 2015)  -2  % per 
year -2  % per 
year 
1.2 Reduction in the 
number of confirmed 
cases of brucellosis 
in humans in 
Member States 
where a EU 
programme is co -
funded  425 human 
cases  437 human 
cases  
(year 2015)  -2  % per 
year -2  % per 
year 
Animal health measures  
2.1 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States  which are 
free from bovine 
tuberculosis in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted    
IT, PT, UK 
partly free  
HR, IE, ES 
not free  HR free  
IT, PT,  UK 
partly free  
IE, ES not free  
(year 2016)  HR free  
IT, PT, UK 
partly free  
IE, ES not 
free  HR, PT free  
IT, ES, UK 
partly free  
IE not free  
2.2 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from bovine 
brucellosis in respect 
of which a financial 
contribution is IT, PT, 
ES,UK ,HR,  
not free  HR, UK free  
IT, PT, ES 
partially free  
 (year 2016)  
 HR, ES, UK 
free 
IT, PT partly 
free 
 HR, IT, PT 
ES, UK free  
 
 
36 
 Operational technical 
indicator  Baseline 
2013  Last available 
data*  Intermediate 
Target 2017  Final Target 
2020  
granted  
2.3 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from ovine and 
caprine brucellosis in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted  IT, PT, ES 
partially free  
HR, EL not 
free 
 HR free  
IT, PT, ES 
partially free  
, EL not free  
(year 2016)  HR, ES  free  
IT, PT, partly 
free 
EL not free  HR, ES, IT, 
free 
PT partly free  
EL not free 
2.4 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from rabies in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted  AT, BG, EE, 
FI, IT, LV, 
LT free  
HR, EL, HU, 
PL, RO, SK, 
SL not free
  AT, BG, EE, 
FI, EL, HR, 
IT, LV, LT, 
SK, SL free  
HU, PL, RO, 
not free  
(year 2016)  AT, BG, HR, 
EE, FI, EL, 
HU, IT, LV, 
LT,SL, SK 
free;  
PL, RO not 
free AT, BG, HR, 
EE, FI, EL, 
HU, IT, LV, 
LT,SL, SK 
PL, RO free  
2.5 Reduction of disease 
parameters in bovine 
tuberculosis in 
Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted:  
• Reduction of herd 
incidence  
• Reduction of herd 
prevalence  Incidence:  
HR: 0.14;  
 IE 3.88; IT: 
0.84; PT: 
0.28; ES: 
0.91; UK: 
9.12 
Prevalence:  
HR: 0.16; IR: 
4.07; IT: 
0.97; PT: 
0.35; ES: 
1.39; UK: 
14.49  Incidence:  
HR free;  
IE 3. 27; IT: 
0.61; PT: 0.19; 
ES: 1.59; UK: 
9.12 
Prevalence:  
HR free; IE: 
3.59; IT: 0.86; 
PT: 0.28; ES: 
2.87; UK: 
14.27  
(year 2016)  Incidence:  
HR free;  
 IE 2.91; IT 
0.54, PT 
0.20; ES 
0.95; UK 
6.90 
Prevalence:  
HR free; IE 
3.04; IT 0.65, 
PT 0.27; ES 
1.55; UK 
10.64  Incidence:  
HR, PT free;  
IE, IT, ES, 
UK not 
defined  
Prevalence:  
HR, PT free;  
IE, IT, ES, 
UK not 
defined  
2.6 Reduction of disease 
parameters in bovine 
brucellosis in Incidence:  
HR: 0; ES: 
0.06; UK: Incidence:  
HR, UK: free; 
ES: 0.022; IT: Incidence:  
HR, ES, UK Incidence:  
HR, IT, PT, 
 
37 
 Operational technical 
indicator  Baseline 
2013  Last available 
data*  Intermediate 
Target 2017  Final Target 
2020  
Member States 
where a Union co -
financing is granted:  
• Reduction of herd 
incidence  
• Reduction of herd 
prevalence  0.13; IT: 
1.38; PT: 
0.22 
Prevalence:  
HR: 0; ES: 
0.08; UK: 
0.14; IT: 
1.62; PT: 
0.27 1.336; PT: 
0.175  
Prevalence:  
HR, UK: free; 
ES: 0.025; IT: 
1.646; PT: 
0.215  
(year 2016)  free;  
IT 0.92, PT 
0.18;  
Prevalence:  
HR, ES, UK 
free;  
IT 1.16, PT 
0.21 ES, UK free  
 
Prevalence:  
HR, IT, PT, 
ES, UK free  
2.7 Reduction of disease 
parameters in ovine 
and caprine 
brucellosis in 
Member States 
where a Union co -
financing is granted:  
• Reduction of herd 
incidence  
• Reduction of herd 
prevalence  Incidence:  
HR: N/A; 0; 
EL: 0.2; IT: 
1.07; PT: 0.8; 
ES: 0.1  
Prevalence:  
HR: N/A; 
CY: 0; EL: 
1.41; IT: 1.5; 
PT: 1.1; ES: 
0.17 Incidence:  
HR: free 
EL: 0.25; IT: 
0.842; PT: 
0.462; ES: 
0.063  
Prevalence:  
EL: 1.72; IT: 
1.206; PT: 
0.573; ES: 
0.085  
(year 2016)  Incidence:  
HR, ES free;  
EL 0.275; IT 
0.48; PT 
0.41;  
Prevalence:  
HR, ES free;  
EL 0.61; IT 
0.61; PT 
0.62;  Incidence:  
HR, ES IT, 
free;  
EL, ES, PT 
not defined  
Prevalence:  
HR, ES, IT, 
free;  
EL, ES, PT  
not defined  
2.8 Reduction in the 
number of cases of 
rabies in wildlife in 
Member States 
where a Union co -
financing is granted  587 cases  18 cases  
(2016 data)  80 cases  0 cases  
2.9 Reduction in the 
number of classical 
BSE cases in 
Member States 
where a Union co -
financing is granted  7 cases  5 cases  
(2016 data)  < 3 cases  0 cases  
 
38 
 Operational technical 
indicator  Baseline 
2013  Last available 
data*  Intermediate 
Target 2017  Final Target 
2020  
Plant health measures  
3.1 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States covered by 
surveys for pests not 
known to occur in 
the Union territory 
(Category A 
according to the 
work programme for 
2017 -2018 for the 
implementation of 
survey programmes 
for pests)  N/A 78.57%  
(year 2016)  No 
intermediate 
target  80  %  
3.2 Increase in the 
number of Member 
States covered by 
surveys for pests 
considered to be 
most dangerous for 
the Union territory 
(Category B 
according to the 
work programme for 
2017 -2018 for the 
implementation of 
survey programmes 
for pests)  N/A 75% 
(year 2016)  No 
intermediate 
target  80  %  
3.3 Reduction in the 
number of outbreaks 
for pests covered by 
specific EU 
legislation  27 cases 
(2014 
baseline)  18 cases  No 
intermediate 
target  22 cases  
BTSF activities  
4.1 Success rate of the 
tests performed by 
the participants after 
the training - from N/A 85% >70  %  >70  %  
 
39 
 Operational technical 
indicator  Baseline 
2013  Last available 
data*  Intermediate 
Target 2017  Final Target 
2020  
2014: e -learning 
tool; from 2016: all 
trainings  
4.2 Overall satisfaction 
rate of participants 
attending the training  90.17 %  90.66%  >80  %  >80  %  
EURL activities  
5.1 Success rate of 
proficiency test, 
including the correct 
follow -up in cases of 
underperformance  N/A 85.366%  No 
intermediate 
target  >70  %  
 
5.2 Satisfaction rate of 
participants 
attending the annual 
workshop (focus on 
contents only)  N/A 87.442%  No 
intermediate 
target  >80 %  
* 2016 data are provisional