EN    EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 26.9.2017  
COM(2017) 546 final  
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
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) No 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European 
Parliament and o f the 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  
{SWD(2017) 314 final}  
{SWD(2017) 315 final}  
{SWD(2017) 316 final}   
 
2 
 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 material1, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 
2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 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 the 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  
1. Introduction  
Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ente red into 
force at the end of June 2014 and established a Common Financial Framework (CFF)  in the 
fields of  food chain, animal health and animal welfare, plant health and plant reproductive 
material  (hereinafter: the "CFF Regulation").  
The present report is  prepared under article 42 ("Evaluation") of the CFF Regulation itself, 
which requires the Commission to establish and present to the European Parliament and to the 
Council a midterm evaluation report covering the following spending measures:  
 veterinary er adication, control and surveillance programmes ( hereinafter : "veterinary 
programmes") implemented by the Member States, which aim to progressively eliminate 
animal diseases and zoonoses and to implement disease control measures;  
 phytosanitary survey progr ammes  concerning the presence of pests in the Union 
territory;  
 veterinary and phytosanitary emergency measures , which aim to timely cope with 
emergency situations related to, respectively, animal health and plant health;  
 European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) activities , which aim to ensure 
high-quality, uniform testing in the EU and to support Commission activities on risk 
management in the area of laboratory analysis;  
 Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) programme , which is a training in itiative 
addressing national authority staff involved in official controls in the areas of food and 
feed law, animal health and welfare and plant health rules.  
Under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the amounts allocated for the set 
of ac tivities listed above represent almost the entire budget in the food chain area.  
                                                            
1 OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1.  
 
3 
 The present report describes the outcome of the mid -term evaluation exercise, based on the 
external supporting study2 and on the internal assessment conducted at Commission le vel. It is 
accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD), which provides an overview of the 
technical and financial implementation of the CFF activities, and summarises the findings of 
the external supporting study.  
The EU spending programme provides finan cial support to achieve the objectives of the EU 
food and feed legislation. Its contribution to the achievement of the objectives is intrinsically 
correlated with the contribution of national spending and measures that legally require 
Member States to take  action.  
The scope of the mid -term evaluation covers the implementation of the CFF Regulation in 
2014, 2015 and, based on preliminary data available, in 2016. The partial data available for 
2016 is a limitation for the present evaluation.  
2. Background and ob jectives of the CFF Regulation  
The CFF Regulation was established in order to improve the functioning of the spending for 
the activities implemented within the food chain area, as well as to focus on EU funding 
priorities providing real added value. It mod ernised and rationalised the pre -existing financial 
provisions under a single framework, with harmonised procedures, standardised payment 
rates, clarified eligible costs and measures.  
From the operational point of view, most of the activities and measures  were already 
supported before 2014. New measures were introduced  in the phytosanitary area, namely 
the possibility to co -finance the implementation of survey programmes concerning the 
presence of plant pests in the Union territory.  
The general policy obj ective 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 
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.  
This general objective is crystallised into four specific objectives, one for each of the four 
spending areas covered by the CFF Re gulation itself, namely: food safety, animal health and 
welfare, plant health, official controls.  
The specific objectives are accompanied by six specific performance indicators, also set out in 
the CFF Regulation, which provided a basis to conduct a sector ial evaluation of the measures 
implemented under each of the four covered spending areas.  
To achieve its objective, a maximum total ceiling for expenditure of EUR 1 891 936 000  for 
the seven -year period 2014 -2020, covered by the present MFF was set aside f or the CFF 
Regulation.  
                                                            
2 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 prepared by IBF International consulting (see 
attached staff working document).  
 
4 
 The CFF expenditure primarily consists of direct co -financing to the Member States, which 
are the almost exclusive beneficiaries of the EU spending in this area. The Member States 
receive a reimbursement for the eligible costs incurr ed to carry out the eligible measures. The 
Union financial contribution mainly takes the form of a grant.  
3. Outcome of the mid -term evaluation of the implementation of the CFF 
Regulation  
In accordance with the provisions of Article 42 of the CFF Regulation, the mid -term 
evaluation report covers the following aspects:  
 the achievement of the CFF objectives (Article 2(1)), as regards the efficiency of the use 
of resources and its added value, at Union level;  
 the scope for simplification;  
 the continued relevance of all objectives;  
 the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth.  
It takes into account evaluation results on the long -term impact of the predecessor measures.  
The evaluation takes account of the progre ss made by using the six CFF indicators listed in 
Article 2(2)3.  
3.1 Achievement of CFF Regulation objectives: efficiency and EU added value  
The general policy objective presented in the background of this report is complemented by 
four specific objectives , one for each of the four covered spending areas.  
 Animal health : to contribute to achieving a higher animal health status for the Union 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 : to contribute to improving the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability 
of official controls and other activities carried out with a view to the effective 
impleme ntation of and compliance with the Union rules (in the areas covered by the CFF 
Regulation).  
 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.  
                                                            
3 Table 1 of the staff working document accompanying the present report  
 
5 
 These specific objectives are accompanied by the six CFF Regulation indicators referred to 
above, which provide a general approach to follow up the progress of the spending in this 
area. In order to concretely monito r and measure the performance of the CFF activities, the 
Commission services further translated those indicators into a comprehensive set of twenty -
one operational technical indicators, defining specific targets for each of them4for 2017 and 
2020. This set  of indicators provides information on the technical performance of the CFF 
measures, but it does not allow the assessment of the cost -effectiveness of the programme. 
Particularly, the absence of available cost -effectiveness indicators limits the evaluatio n of the 
efficiency of the CFF measures.  
3.1.1  Animal health  
Achievements of objectives  
The implementation of veterinary measures represents the largest part of the expenditure 
under the CFF Regulation budget, with the veterinary programmes alone exceeding 75% of the 
total spending in 2014 and 2015. Payments for veterinary programmes in 2014 amounted to 
EUR 136 Million, out of EUR 180 Million and in 2015 amounted to EUR 148 Million out of 
194. This budgetary relevance is also reflected in the fact that 12 ou t of the 21 technical 
indicators monitored in this context relate to this spending area. 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 measure 
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 f inancial support under the veterinary programmes, with 
a growing number of Member States or regions becoming free from animal diseases, and an 
overall reduction in all monitored parameters.  A significant example is represented by the EU 
programmes address ing 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 2016, hugely reducing a significant risk to health and enabling free 
movem ent of cats and dogs within the EU. Another 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 
disease; in the remaining three Member States, the main performance indicator, monitoring 
the evolution of herd prevalence, has decreased by 25% over the same period, showing a 
positive trend towards the complete eradication of the disease. 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 brucellosis  (in 1 Member St ate and in a few regions of 
another Member State out of 6 with EU co -funded programmes). While indicators on 
salmonellosis and brucellosis in animals show progress, indicators in humans have not yet 
shown expected results of a yearly 2 per cent decrease of  cases,  over the three -year period 
under evaluation.  
                                                            
4 Details on  both operational technical indicators can be found in Annex 4 to the SWD  
 
6 
 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 
restriction s and the block of exports - have been avoided. A recent example is the fight against 
the epidemic of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD), an infectious viral disease of cattle transmitted 
via infected saliva or through insects, introduced in the EU from Turkey.  In 2016, this disease 
affected seven countries in the South East Europe, including Greece, Bulgaria and the Balkan 
region. All these countries resorted to mass vaccination with support of the EU LSD vaccine 
bank set up immediately to face the emergency. This v accination campaign resulted in the 
successful containment of the disease: no further Member States were affected in 2016 and 
the disease has not reoccurred in the vaccinated areas.  
Efficiency  
The improvement of the animal health status is accompanied by a progressive reduction of the 
financial 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, whic h 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.  
It has to be highlighted that  a recent special report from the Court of Auditors5, published in 
April 2016, considers the Commission' strategy for animal diseases to be sound and well -
developed, including a good framework for prioritising budget resources on priority 
programmes. Accor ding to its findings, the Member States programmes meet the required 
criteria, and are generally well designed and properly implemented. Moreover, Member States 
prove to have adequate systems to identify animal disease outbreaks and facilitate their 
eradic ation. It should be noted, however, that the report of the Court of Auditors also 
acknowledges a lack of available international standard models and economic indicators, 
which limits the possibility for the Commission to demonstrate the cost -effectiveness of 
veterinary expenditures.  
EU added value  
The achievement of a higher animal health status is the result of the legal measures put in 
place at EU level with the technical and financial support provided by the EU to the Member 
States. When a disease is sus pected 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 as regards the movement of susceptible consignments and the 
                                                            
5 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf.  
 
7 
 regionalisation6 of the  disease. The variety of measures to put in place to tackle animal 
diseases and the fact that many of the diseases ignore the borders, requires a centralised 
management system in order to properly coordinate and organise the implementation of 
specific acti ons in the Member States.  
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 . A good example of EU coordination is the 
recent management at EU level of the African swine fever outbreak, which reached the EU 
from Russia in 2014. Since the ve ry early stages of the epidemics - for which no vaccine is 
available - the Commission has proactively promoted a common strategy amongst affected 
Member States, neighbouring third countries and bordering Member States at risk based on 
EU legislation and th e best scientific knowledge. The Commission has given technical and 
financial support for specific targeted measures to support the policy. This coordinated action 
resulted in the containment of the disease under the period covers by the current evaluation  
and has limited costs for both the EU and the national budgets. It has also avoided major trade 
disruption, both within the EU and with non -EU countries.  
3.1.2  Plant health  
Achievements of objectives  
While the EU financial support for the implementation o f plant health emergency measures 
has been provided for many years, the funding of plant health survey programmes is still at an 
initial phase.  
Survey programmes were established for the first time in 2015; the evaluation of their results 
has therefore bee n limited due to the short timeframe and the absence of predecessor 
measures. Nevertheless, the EU Members States have welcomed their introduction since the 
very first year, with 17 EU countries presenting a programme in 2015 and 22 in 2016. In 
2015, the i mplementation of surveys programmes has allowed the detection of a number of 
new emerging risks in the Union territory such as the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa.  
The budget available to support the implementation of emergency measures and survey 
progr ammes concerning the presence of pests represents a limited part of the total expenditure 
under the CFF Regulation budget. In 2014, spending to implement emergency measures 
amounted to EUR 7.7 Million and in 2015 to EUR 12.2 Million while spending on surve ys 
programmes amounted to EUR 4.2 in 2015.  
To follow up the results of the implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures, the 
Commission monitors the number of cases for a selection of priority pests, including some 
devastating pathogen such as the Xylella fastidiosa . In the plant health area, the eradication 
objective in case of outbreak is possible only if decisive measures are put immediately in 
                                                            
6 Regionalisation is a recent methodology for disease control through the separation of disease free and 
affected areas on the basis of epidemiological criteria.  
 
8 
 place and not when a pest is already endemic in the area. Difficulties in achieving eradication 
may resul t from a 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. In case s where 
eradication is not feasible, containment is the only alternative in the present state of science. 
This highlights the importance of early detection to be achieved through survey programmes.  
Efficiency  
The implementation of the survey programmes aim s to detect the presence of priority pests in 
the EU territory. In this view, a progressive increment of the financial resources is foreseen 
under the current MFF, 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 predictable due to emerging risks as effect of climate change, 
global trade and movement of travellers around the world. 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 , which were responsible for almost all payments (91%). During the period under 
consideration, the EU financial support for the implementation of emergency measures has 
contributed to prevent the further introduction and further spread into the rest of the  Union 
territory of the above mentioned pests.  
EU added value  
The EU intervention supports the management of plant health outbreaks, where the EU 
provides the financial contribution needed at Member State level to implement emergency 
measures with the aim  to prevent further spread of the relevant pests into the rest of the Union 
territory.  
Moreover, a Union support facilitates the coordination among Member States with a view to 
survey plant pests deserving a closer attention due to their economic, environmental and 
social impact.  
Overall, the implementation of EU co -financed surveys program mes and emergency measures 
in the EU territory contributes to preserving agricultural production through plant health 
protection, as well as protection of biodiversity and forests, together with agricultural 
competitiveness.  
3.1.3  Official controls  
Achieve ments of objectives  
The EU financial support to the official controls system addresses two major instruments, 
covering almost 100% 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 
 
9 
 both the EURLs, and in the context of the BTSF initiative. Four operational indicators7 have 
been developed to monitor the performance of the main measures co -funded in the official 
controls' area.  
The EURLs have c ontributed, inter -alia, to the continuous update of diagnostic tools for 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 leve l 
competitive playing field. An average success rate of 85% by the participating laboratories in 
the proficiency tests8 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, National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) 
involved in the official control 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 three years considered, 52 topics of key 
importance for the CFF areas. The programme was considered to be useful 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 thei r obligations and how best to 
enforce relevant EU legislation. The BTSF programme has also proven to be helpful in 
responding to new needs, notably during crisis events, when it contributed to both prevention 
and crises -preparedness. A concrete example is the BTSF training 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 food safety authorities.  
Efficiency  
Those 2 activities are financed at 100% by the EU, and each have an annual cost of about 15 
million euro for the EU budget. This limited cost has, nevertheless, allowed the EURLs to 
perform high -level test ing activities and to train hundreds of NRLs per year and  the BTSF 
have trained per year some 6000 officials of national competent authorities involved in 
official controls.   
EU added value  
The EU added value provided by the EURLs activities and the BTSF  programmes is linked to 
the nature of those activities: the network of laboratories ensures that all EU Member States 
work within a consistent and uniform regulatory framework and the EU training programme 
promotes a common approach towards the implementa tion of EU legislation. This 
                                                            
7 Annex 4 to the SWD  
8 Proficiency testing determines the performance of individual laboratories for specific tests or measurements 
and is used to monitor laboratories’ continuing performance. It  is also called inter -laboratory 
comparison. As this term implies, proficiency testing compares the measuring results obtained by 
different laboratories.  
 
10 
 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 major example of positive interaction 
within the EU, which could not be achieve d through isolated efforts at national level and 
without the EU financial support.  
3.1.4  Food safety  
The achievement of the food safety objective has to be seen from an integrated perspective, 
being a horizontal goal resulting from the implementation and e nforcement of the legislative 
framework in combination with the contribution of the EU and national spending 
programmes. Animal health, plant health, and official control activities all contribute to 
having a high level of safety of food and of food produc tion systems, in the interest of all EU 
citizens. The safety of food requires safe and healthy animals and plants as well and a high -
standard system of controls. There is therefore a direct and binding link with the achievement 
of a high level of animal he alth, plant health and official controls to meet this requirement.  
The effective enforcement of EU requirements in the above areas within the EU, and in non -
EU countries exporting animals, plants and products to the EU, is key to maintaining high 
levels of  food safety.  
The EU's high standards both facilitate intra -EU trade and create opportunities for European 
businesses to compete on the global market. High levels of safety are fundamental to stable 
markets and consumer confidence and also protect Europe f rom the economic and human 
costs of disease outbreaks.  
In the period covered by the evaluation, around 200 audits and inspections have been carried 
out per year by the Commission services. Those have contributed to several key priorities of 
the Commission , notably: a regulatory environment which facilitates jobs, growth and 
investment by ensuring high levels of safety supported by sound control and enforcement 
systems; a deeper and fairer internal market by providing a level playing field where citizens 
and businesses can be confident in uniform and high levels of safety and transparent 
information on the state of implementation of controls in Member States and non -EU 
countries which in turn informs policy makers on the effectiveness of regulation in the 
relevant sectors.  
Through its audit experience, the Commission provides important feedback on the 
effectiveness, impact and added value of EU legislation and activities.  
If the achievement of the sectorial objectives analysed in the previous sections contribute to a 
positive assessment of the general food safety situation at EU level, the reputation of the EU 
food products needs no introduction. The EU agri -food productions are globally appreciated 
for their quality as well as for the high -level safety  standards, representing the largest 
manufacturing sector in Europe and a leading player worldwide. In this context, the EU food 
safety budget plays a crucial role in contributing to their competitiveness.  
 
11 
 3.2 Simplification  
In line with the Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020'9, the CFF Regulation was 
envisaged to modernise and simplify the pre -existing financial provisions. Simplification and 
rationalisation were addressed by:  
 replacing the previous legal framework, over -complex and often out -of-date,  with a single 
piece of legislation covering the whole food chain area;  
 rationalising the funding rates, with the definition of three standard rates only, namely: 
50%, 75% and 100%;  
 aligning the procedures in the phytosanitary and veterinary fields under a  harmonised 
framework to ensure clarity, transparency and a sound regulatory environment;  
 reducing the use of Comitology and Commission Decisions in order to short the time for 
contract and payment,  
An additional step towards the overall simplification of  the system was the introduction of a 
unit cost system used for reimbursing the activities carried out to implement veterinary 
programmes. It covers about 50% of the eligible costs and is currently under revision in view 
of further extending it to other ar eas. The new system was perceived by both the Commission 
and the Member States as facilitating the request for funding and for reimbursements.  
As concerns reporting requirements, some Member States perceived them as disproportionate 
for the smallest veter inary programmes and emergency measures only.  
3.3 Contribution to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth  
According to the last EUROSTAT data, in 2015, the output of the whole agri -food industry in 
the EU is estimated at more than 410 billion euro, representing the largest manufacturing 
sector in Europe and a leading player worldwide, with a continuous increase of the exports of 
its agricultural products. Overall, this sector provides some 44 million jobs in the EU, of 
which 22 million are employed i n farms.  
The competitiveness of European food production depends on its reputation, with the EU food 
safety budget playing a crucial role in contributing to the safety and quality of European food 
products.  
But aspects such as the globalisation of trade, c limate change, and the demands of trade 
partners as well as of consumer behaviour in case of food crises, present challenges to the EU 
system of production. In this changing world, the Europe 2020 growth strategy10 wants the 
EU to become a smart, sustainabl e and inclusive economy. These three mutually reinforcing 
priorities should help the EU and the Member States deliver high levels of employment, 
productivity and social cohesion.  
                                                            
9 COM(2011) 500 final of 22.06.2011.  
10 COM(2014) 130 final of 19.3.2014.  
 
12 
 In the agri -food field, these goals could only be achieved if a high level of  health for humans, 
animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas is guaranteed, and if actions to 
actively prevent and eradicate diseases and pests are implemented.  
3.4 Relevance  
In line with the guiding principle of the Declaration of Rom e11, the CFF measures contribute 
to a safe and secure Europe, where citizen can access high quality food, respecting the 
strictest international standards; risks related to human and public health are contained thanks 
to the long -term intervention of the EU  in this area, as well as to its timely reaction in case of 
emergencies. When preventing the occurrence or the spread of epidemics in the Union 
territory, the food chain measures play a key role in protecting the EU economy, where 
veterinary, phytosanitary , and food crises can have a devastating impact, potentially 
generating enormous costs for both public budgets and for the whole agri -food sector. This 
impacts the social dimension of Europe, having a positive effect on the protection of the 
interests of a ll EU citizens, from initial producers to final consumers. Eventually, this system 
makes its contribution to a stronger EU agri -food industry on the global scene, by creating the 
economies of scale of the internal EU market, which in turn supports the expo rts of EU 
agricultural products.  
3.5 Long -term impact of the predecessor measures  
Most of the activities currently covered by the CFF Regulation were already co -funded under 
the previous legislation. Many of them, especially animal health measures, require  by their 
nature a long -term investment to achieve success.  
Among the main achievements resulting from the long -term impact of the measures 
implemented before 2014, the eradication of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in cattle, a 
fatal disease which is tra nsmissible to humans through the consumption of contaminated beef 
products, is a good example. The long -term EU co -financing against this disease played a key 
role resulted in a drop in the number of positive cases from more than 2000 in 2001 to 5 cases 
only in 2016: close to the eradication. This in turn has allowed a range of costly protective 
measures to be withdrawn and the creation of new trade opportunities.  
Another good case is related to an important zoonosis such as Rabies that has been almost 
eradicated in the EU in wildlife (complete eradication is expected by 2020) with the number 
of cases falling from 726 in 2010 to only 18 in 2016, enabling free movement of cats and dogs 
within the EU.  
A decrease of the infections in poultry population (such a s laying hens) by salmonella spp . 
has been reported following the implementation of EU co -funded  salmonella  control 
programmes. This has lead also to benefits in terms of human health, being salmonellosis  an 
important zoonosis and one of the main causes of  human contamination is the consumption of 
eggs. The incidence of confirmed human cases, analysed over a period longer then the 
timeframe under evaluation, has decreased from 105.450 in 2010 to 94.600 in 2015. However, 
                                                            
11 https://ec.europa.eu/commis sion/sites/beta -political/files/05_the_rome_agenda_en_web.pdf  
 
13 
 yearly peaks of human cases can be ob served due to several factors such as the interruption of 
the eggs cold chain.  
3.6 Area of further consideration  
Under the EU 2014 -2020 budget, the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector is not 
available for the food and feed programme. In the event of outbreaks of large -scale veterinary 
and phytosanitary epidemics, such as the recent case of avian influenza12, whose budgetary 
impact might not be accommodated within the current programme, the financial support to 
implement eradication activities and to timely contain the spread of these epidemics could be 
difficult.  
The funding of plant health activities is still at an initial phase and further consideration will 
need to be given to properly respond to the needs in this area, e.g. in terms of inte gration 
between survey programmes and emergency measures. In the meantime should be noted that 
the effectiveness of plant health emergency measures deserves particular attention. In this 
respect, it is important to consider that the achievement of the erad ication of certain pests is 
often more complicated than in the animal health area due the high number of host species, 
latency of symptoms and their presence of vectors. In cases where eradication is no longer 
possible, a containment approach is still an e ffective way to prevent further spread of the pest 
into the rest of the Union territory.  
Some adjustments were introduced to adapt the financial tools used in these spending areas to 
the provisions of the current Financial Regulation13, notably the grants. However, experience 
shows that, taking into account the characteristics of the food safety expenditure (non -
competitive funding consisting of reimbursement to the Member States), grants are not always 
the best tool in the specific area of veterinary and ph ytosanitary measures.  
As regards financial support for other activities, reflections should be carried out on how 
grants aimed at supporting a more sustainable behaviour of certain actors in the food chain 
contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Deve lopment, as referred to in the 
Communication "Next steps for a sustainable European future". Available options should be 
further examined how the option of donating food that is safe for consumption could be 
supported by extending grants to organisations w hich are active in the redistribution of safe 
food, as suggested in the Special Report "Combating Food Waste" of the European Court of 
Auditors,  
4. CONCLUSIONS  
The EU framework on food safety, animal and plant health has been generally recognised as 
unifor m and largely 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 standards in a key sector of the E U economy. The EU 
                                                            
12 The epidemic started in 2015 and has not extinguished yet. To date, provisional costs exceed EUR 110 
million.  
13 Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 ( OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).  
 
14 
 investment in surveillance, disease and pest control and eradication, contributes to the safety 
and trade in the entire food chain. The mid -term evaluation of the CFF Regulation shows that 
the present financial framework is functioning we ll within its policy context: all activities 
receiving EU financial support in this area 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, inc luding the functioning of an effective internal market and the 
support to trade with non -EU countries.  
The CFF Regulation financial instrument has also proven to be flexible to address emerging 
needs for co -financing especially in the occurrence of outbrea ks. The activities funded under 
the CFF Regulation provide a support to the EU food and feed framework which contribute to 
an EU which is safe and secure, prosperous and sustainable, social, and stronger on the global 
scene.