EN    EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 26.9.2017  
SWD(2017) 316 final  
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
Synopsis report  
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) 314 final}  
{SWD(2017) 315 final}   
 
2 
 SYNOPSIS REPORT  
1. INTRODUCTION  
The present report presents the outcome of the stakeholders' consultation conducted for the 
mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 on the management of the food and 
feed expenditure (hereinafter: the Regulation). The consultation covered aspect s relating to 
the evaluation criteria used in this context, namely relevance, added value, efficiency, 
effectiveness, and coherence. It addressed both the direct beneficiaries of the grants awarded 
under the Regulation, notably the central veterinary and p hytosanitary Competent Authorities  
(CAs) of EU Member States (MSs), as well as the European and the National Reference 
Laboratories (EURLs and NRLs) representatives, and stakeholders which are indirectly 
involved in the funded activities, especially farmer s, consumers, food-industry  and r etailers 
representatives.  
Stakeholders had the opportunity to provide their feedback on a Commission evaluation 
roadmap on the mid -term evaluation on Regulation (EU) No 652/20141, during a 4 -week 
period starting on 9 June 2016. In addition, an open public consultation (OPC)2 of all 
interested parties has been conducted using the European Commission ‘Public consultations’ 
website and the DG SANTE ‘Consultations and feedback’ web page. The open public 
consultation was carried  out between 16 December 2016 and 17 March 2017.  
A targeted on -line stakeholder consultation was conducted, and complemented by targeted 
interviews of different stakeholders' representatives.  
 
1.1 OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
No feedback was submitted on the evaluation roadmap.  
The OPC received replies from 5 participants only: 2 citizens and 3 stakeholders responding 
of behalf of an organization or association. The low participation in these consultations in not 
unexpected, considering the highly technical na ture of the Regulation. Both respondents who 
submitted their reply as individuals (a communication expert from Spain and a freelance 
consultant from France) consented to the publication of their contributions but in an 
anonymous form. The three stakeholder s participating in the OPC were the International 
Federation for Animal Health - Europe AISBL, the ANGEV -PRO.CIV. (Italy), and the 
Estonian Veterinary and Food Board (Estonia). The low number of respondents did not allow 
separate analysis of the replies, b ut have been used for confirmation of the other information 
collected.  
Four out of the five replies to the OPC focus on animal health issues, while one is focused on 
plants. The general pattern of the answers was very much in line with the findings obtaine d 
from the stakeholder consultation (questionnaires).  There is an indication that the respondents 
had some difficulty in seeing the contribution of the Regulation to the functioning of the 
market and its impact on trade.  
 
                                                            
1 http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_sante_142_evaluation_cff_en.pdf  
2 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food -safety/dgs_consultations/food/consultation_20161213_food -and-
feed-exp_en.htm  
 
3 
 1.2 TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULT ATION  
Targeted questionnaire surveys have been used to acquire specific information from particular 
stakeholders' groups. The stakeholders were identified by the stakeholder mapping exercise3.  
Targeted questionnaires have been developed for stakeholders representing:  
1. CAs, industry (including farmers organisations, food -industry representatives, retailer 
representatives, veterinary organisations), EU and national associations, international 
organisations, and NGOs (including consumers organisations);  
2. EURLs ; 
3. Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF).  
The targeted on -line questionnaire surveys were carried out between 21 December 2016 and 
31 January 2017 (upon request a few respondents were allowed to submit after this date).  
 
1.3 TARGETED ON-LINE QUESTIONNAIRES  
Based on the stakeholder prioritisation, four questionnaires were developed for organisations 
with a high stake and high power at EU (Commission representatives) and national (MSs CAs 
representatives) levels, and for the organisations with a low stake and high power at EU level 
(EU branch organisations representatives). These groups were invited directly to complete the 
questionnaires.   
Overall, a high response rate of 78% was reached for the invited stakeholders.  
 
2. RESULTS OF EACH CONSULTATION ACTIVITY  
2.1 OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
The respondents in the OPC generally evaluated the Regulation to be relevant. No one 
identified any unmet need from the programme. They considered the Regulation to have a 
satisfactory EU added value.  The respondents also consi dered the Regulation to be 
satisfactory in terms of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the plant health -respondent made a 
comment on the large scale killing of trees due to fight the "Xylella" pest in a southern EU 
region and the impact this has on the landscape ; a specific question was raised on the criteria 
that are used to determine the zone in which trees had to be culled. The respondents in the 
OPC considered the Regulation to be very efficient.  The OPC did not contain replies on 
Coherence.  
 
2.2 TARGETED QUESTIONNAIRES  
RELEVANCE  
On relevance for  Animal Health measures, results from the study questionnaires indicated 
that respondents are of the opinion that the Regulation meets the required needs for veterinary 
programmes and emergency measures. A majority of the respondents of the CAs and the EU 
Commission considered tha t the objectives of the Regulation are valid and in accordance with 
                                                            
3 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), Appendix 
C 
 
4 
 the current food chain needs in the MSs. EU branch organisations on a whole gave somewhat 
lower scores.  
The percentage of respondents that either strongly agree or agree with this opinion varies 
between 85% and 92%. Few respondents disagreed. Five respondents disagreed with the 
statement that the needs regarding “implementing enhanced biosecurity measures during 
outbreaks” were well addressed. A need for increased possibilities to co -fund p reventive 
measures  was also expressed by some respondents.  
The answers to the open questions of the stakeholder questionnaires on the relevance of 
animal health emergency funding needs can be summarised as follows:  
- there were some requests to add more cat egories of costs eligible for co -financing;  
- co-financing should be dependent on a MS' success in the execution of veterinary 
programmes;  
- there was general agreement among stakeholders that co -funding opportunities for animal 
health provided by the Regulati on are an essential tool to ensure disease prevention and 
the timely and efficient control of animal diseases.  
On relevance for  Plant Health measures , the majority (around 75%) of respondents from all 
survey groups consider the Regulation in line with food  chain needs of the MSs. More than 
80% of the respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement that the co -funded surveys 
concerning plant pests address the need to detect pests timely and support MSs in actions on 
plant health control, prevention an d eradication. All stakeholders have the same opinion. The 
only organisation that disagrees is the European Professional Beekeepers Association.  
Regarding specific needs, the majority is slightly lower (around 65%) in considering that the 
Regulation is va lid and in accordance with the need to protect free external and intra -EU trade 
in plants and plant products, which can be considered as an indirect objective of plant health 
policy. Chief Plant Health Officers (COPHs) do not differ in their opinion from o ther 
stakeholders. Although the number of respondents is low (5), representatives of EU branch 
organisations are rather neutral in their opinion that the Regulation is in line with food chain 
needs of the MSs.  
On relevance  questions for EURLs , 36 responses were received out of the 45 EURLs. When 
asked to give a score on match between their activities and the current needs for official 
controls in EU, EURLs' Directors consider all activities to match well with the needs.   
The majority of respo ndents considered that no relevant activities are currently missed by the 
EURLs. Still, 38% of the EURLs mentioned that the following topics should be addressed in 
order to have better official controls:  
- more research in new techniques in order to decide if there are real alternatives for the 
official diagnostic tools;  
- support to official national laboratories from third Countries that export food to the EU;  
- ability to respond to emerging problems at short notice, i.e. with additional funding 
rapidly avail able.  
It was also discussed whether training of NRLs could be done in the home laboratories of the 
NRL instead at the EURLs facilities, but due to other work obligations the EURLs have 
limited resources to meet this request, so only one or two NRLs could be trained in their 
laboratories each year. This approach is therefore not efficient, although training at the home 
facilities would have the advantage of targeting specific problems of each NRL.  
 
5 
 On relevance  for BTSF activities, replies to the targeted q uestionnaires to National Contact 
Points (NCPs) in EU and third countries, showed that the relevance for the BTSF training 
subjects was evident. T he vast majority considered that both basic and advanced training 
should be offered in the context of this EU initiative, while  a minority of 7% considered basic 
training not necessary, likely to be covered by trainings offered by the MSs authorities 
themselves.  
When asked to identify the ten most important trainings for meeting the needs for official 
controls in their country, there was a large agreement between EU and non -EU NCPs, 
exception made for some topics where there were substantial divergences, such as 
contingency planning (41 % for EU NCPs versus 12 % for non -EU NCPs); Food hygiene 
flexibility (44%  vers us 4%); EU law enforcement in Sanitary and Phytosanitary fields (19%  
EU versus 0% Non -EU).  
 
EU ADDED VALUE  
On EU added value for Animal Health measures, more than 80% of the respondents 
indicated they fully or to a large extent agree EU co -funded veterina ry and emergency 
measures contribute to: improve actions to cope with exceptional circumstances; improve the 
MSs action on animal health control, prevention or eradication; support MSs to conduct 
emergency vaccination campaigns; improve the actions in dest ruction and transport of 
carcases during eradication programmes.  
However, a proportion (35 -40%) of the respondents – mainly representatives of the competent 
authorities in the MSs – indicates that they only to some extent or not at all agree with the fact  
that the EU co -funded veterinary measures contribute to: improve and harmonise contingency 
plans that prevents an emergency to become a crisis; improve cooperation and coordination in 
the rapid response network by appropriate and timely communication; enh ance bio -security 
measures in case of disease outbreaks; improve the control of transmissible diseases in animal 
and zoonoses.  
The respondents from the EU Commission were more positive on the EU added value then 
the other respondents. Still, they had some reservations regarding the EU added value 
enhancing biosecurity measures in case of disease outbreaks.  
The comments made by the respondents to open questions in the questionnaires indicated that 
the cooperation between MSs under the Regulation promoted th e knowledge and sharing of 
the experience on the measures implemented. They also highlighted that, since animal 
diseases and plant pests are cross -border problems, MSs benefit from measures taken in other 
MSs. Economies of scale resulting from common measu res, instead of multiple MSs doing 
the same thing, also provide EU added value. The respondents put emphasis on the fact that, 
without the availability of EU funding, the full implementation of programmes will be 
hampered or MSs will have to charge additio nal costs to food chain partners, threatening the 
functioning and harmonization of the internal market. The Regulation provides support to the 
national budgets, ensuring a national financing of measures to prevent and control animal 
diseases. Based on the stakeholders' opinion, should the funding under the regulation be 
withdrawn, fewer measures will be implemented and result in reduced export possibilities and 
lower productivity.  
On EU added value for Plant health measures , most respondents agree with the statement 
that co -financing of emergency measures by the EU speeds up the eradication of a pest in the 
case of an outbreak (70% answered fully or to a large extent), contributes to take harmonised 
 
6 
 actions on plant health con trol, prevention or eradication (75% answered fully or to a large 
extent) and improves the capacity to cope with exceptional circumstances (75% answered 
fully or to a large extent). 21% of CAs and a minority of other stakeholders considered that 
measures c o-funded under the Regulation enhance the sustainable use of pesticides.  
As regards EURLs , most participants in the survey (89%) indicated that NRLs cannot 
perform high quality tests that are in uniformity of analytical results with other NRLs across 
Europ e, via other means than by EURLs guidance and coordination. One participant 
mentioned that the OIE Diagnostic Manual provides guidance on the selection and validation 
of appropriate tests for diagnosis. This answer would indicate that if the EURLs stopped 
existing, there is still a medium (OIE) to guide NRLs to appropriate tests, but there will be no 
control on the NRLs performances. In addition, adaptations of the OIE Diagnostic Manual 
have to pass a lengthy process of discussion and negotiation, and must be accepted by voting 
in the general assembly. The EURL concept is better adapted to adopt new technologies more 
quickly.  
If the EU co -financing for EURLs is withdrawn, 86% of participants thinks the EURLs 
activities would cease completely. Some consequen ces for this will be that: priority tasks such 
as proficiency testing and training activities would not be possible; some staff would have to 
be financed on ad -hoc basis; national interest would exceed EU interests; additional activities 
at national level could not be added, considering that resources are limited in terms of 
permanent staff; it is unlikely that EU MS would finance EURL fully, as it is not a task nor 
duty of any EU MS to assist other EU laboratories; the Commission will lose technical 
suppor t. All in all, the survey shows that the EU financial support to the EURLs is necessary 
and provides EU added value.  
As for EU added value of the BTSF  initiative, it is important to assess if the programme has 
met needs which are not met by national traini ngs in the areas covered by the Regulation. 
91% of the participants in the online survey indicated that trainings are also organized at 
national level. When the participants were asked to evaluate the BTSF training contribution to 
better controls in relati on to national/other training programmes, 81% answered that BTSF 
provide better networking within EU MSs; 62% indicated that BTSF provides better 
harmonization between EU countries, and 57% answered that BTSFs provides a higher level 
of trainings than by n ational training programmes only. No participant indicated that BTSFs 
do not contribute to better official controls.  
Overall, the respondents indicate that BTSF meets needs which are not met by national 
training, including the expertise and technical know ledge provided by the EU programme.  
 
EFFECTIVENESS  
On effectiveness for Animal Health measures, there was general consensus amongst the 
stakeholders that EU co -funded veterinary measures contribute to prevent outbreaks to 
become a crisis, and effectively to control the presence of transmissible diseases in animals 
and zoonoses.  
A large share of the respondents agreed to a large extent that the EU co -funded measures for 
the prevention of transmissible diseases in animals and of zoonoses contribute to: reduce the 
number of cases of diseases in humans linked to zoonoses; reduce and effectively control t he 
transmissible diseases in animals; increase the number of MSs or regions free from animal 
diseases; overall reduce the incidence, prevalence and number of outbreaks. However, 
respondents were less positive (70%) that the EU co -funded measures contribute d to 
 
7 
 preventing the occurrence of outbreaks of animal diseases and zoonoses which pose a risk to 
human and animal health.  
As main factors contributing to the success of control and eradication programmes, the 
following were mentioned: the availability of c o-funding from the EU; the availability of 
adequate procedures in place and the well -trained staff4 to execute the programmes; good 
coordination and communication between different stakeholders; the flexible and transparent 
design of the Regulation which c ontributes to achieve good results, and the merger of all 
former legislation into a single regulation is in line with this; flexible and quick reaction of the 
EU co -funding in case of any new disease, including the availability of EU vaccine banks; 
coordin ation from the Commission on the measures to be implemented and co -financed.  
Main obstacles experienced in achieving the results were:  the administrative burden, which 
was considered high, both at the level of EU and in MSs; reporting requires a huge 
admin istrative effort, which in some cases is not considered to be balanced compared to the 
measures adopted and amount of financial contribution received; lack of sufficiently trained 
personnel available in some MSs; procurement procedures for buying equipment  or vaccine 
which are time consuming.  
Several problems have been identified for rabies programmes that contain activities (part of 
the programme) in third bordering countries. The main problems are linked with completely 
different legislation in these coun tries compared to the EU.  
On effectiveness for Plan Health measures, 75% of the respondents considered the co -
funded measures fully or largely effective with respect to the objectives of timely detection of 
plant pests and immediate eradication. With respe ct to enabling free trade, this figure is 
around 60%.  
A majority of respondents is of the opinion that the EU co -funding allows MSs to take 
adequate measures in case of an outbreak. However, a small majority (53%) considers the 
financing is not timely. MS s applying for a grant to compensate costs of emergency measures 
have to take measures immediately, and to submit the request afterwards. The data provided 
by the Commission show that payments to the MS before the implementation of the 
Regulation could tak e place three or more years after the costs have been incurred.  
Respondents to the questionnaire have been asked for factors playing an important role in 
achieving results and listing the main obstacles. Most important factors are: the financial 
contribut ion by the EU; the timely and high quality decision making; the commitment of 
skilled employees. The major observed obstacles are: the administrative burden; a complex 
decision making in the case of multiple pests and diseases; lack of human resources.  
The majority of respondents to the targeted questionnaire agree that the co -funded survey 
programme contribute to achieve the specific objectives of the Regulation. At least 65% of the 
respondents answered that they fully or to a large extent agree with respe ct to the achievement 
of the objectives of enhanced bio -security control, prevention or eradication relating to plant 
health. With respect to sustainable pesticide use, only a minority have chosen those answers.  
The outcome of the target interviews indica tes that the overall effectiveness of the EURL  
programme is high. Most EURLs (76%) believe the eligible cost categories listed in the 
                                                            
4 Availability of well trained staff dif fers between countries. EU MS recognise that well trained staff 
contributes to success of the programmes, and, conversely, if not available, may deteriorate the 
performance of the programmes  
 
8 
 Regulation are sufficient. The remaining minority of EURLs give examples of cost categories 
they believe are missing, such as: subcontracting; import of biological material from EU 
countries or third countries; website; publication fees; costs for quality management; training 
for EURL staff. The support from NRLs to contribute to the fulfilment of the tasks of the 
EURL is considered to be very strong. 52% of the respondents consider that they do not have 
sufficient mandate (in the meaning of influence, deci ding power, and authority) in their 
relation with the NRLs to contribute to a high quality of analytical results at the NRLs.  They 
suggest that EURLs might be more systematically consulted as regards the revision of 
regulations of concern for them.  
On the  effectiveness of the BTSF  initiative, a very large majority of stakeholders considered 
the workshop as well as sustained training missions (STMs) to be extremely or very effective, 
while the e -learning modules were considered to be moderately effective in  terms of 
improving the official controls. The positive points are: better communication and networking 
between countries; e -learning tools are a good way to teach basic skills and can reach many 
people; STMs allow more intensive mentoring and experts can monitor the progress; e -
learning is available in different languages.  Some points for improvement are: technical 
difficulties with the e -learning programme; w orkshops and STMs are limited in the number of 
participants.  
All of the participants agree that BTSF has improved official controls of food safety, 
especially with regards to the improvement of inspection protocols (56% of participants); 
some participants gave other reasons, such as the improvement of competencies of staff 
involved, of laboratory tes ting skills and of harmonization with EU rules.  
80% of the participants indicates that they can send sufficient staff to the programmes. Of the 
remaining 20%, 56% considers that the programme offers insufficient places due to limits for 
participation, whil e 22% answered that CAs staff has no additional time due to workload. 
Most NCPs believe enough staff can participate in the programme, but the limited number of 
participants for the workshops and STMs is by some considered as restrictive since these are 
the most effective programmes. Another shortcoming is the language barrier, as not all the 
staff speaks English.  
 
EFFICIENCY  
On efficiency for Animal Health measures, veterinary measures were considered very 
efficient by all but one respondent.  
There were a  number of comments on the timing of the payments for emergency measures: it 
was suggested to receive part of the eligible amount in advance at the beginning of an 
outbreak to support MSs in allocated adequate resources since an early stage. One respondent  
indicated that, in case that there is uncertainty about getting EU co -funding, the difference in 
opinions about the interventions to be put in place may prevent that measures are 
implemented.  35% of the respondents consider the overall budget for emergen cy measures as 
appropriate, whereas 40% indicated that the budget should be increased.  
For veterinary programmes, more than 90% of respondents considered resources were 
efficiently or very efficiently employed in animal health prevention, notably by: preve nting 
transmissible diseases in animal and zoonoses; preventing the occurrence of outbreaks of 
animal diseases and zoonoses which pose a risk to human and animal health; reducing the 
number of outbreaks, and; controlling the presence of transmissible disea ses. A number of 
respondents indicated that the timeframe between the implementation of the measure and the 
 
9 
 financing provided is too long. This is considered to have a negative impact on the effective 
execution of the measures.  
On efficiency for Plant Health measures, most respondents are satisfied with the extent to 
which the immediate eradication of outbreaks of quarantine pests has been achieved. Around 
75% considers this efficient or very efficient. The vast majority of respondents is satisfi ed 
with the extent to which the timely detection of pests has been achieved by Plant Health 
measures. Around 80% considers this as efficient or very efficient. Respondents of public 
bodies (MSs CAs and the European Commission) are more positive than respon dents from 
private organizations.  
No respondents consider the available budget is too high. More than half of the respondents 
argue for higher budgets and also half of respondents argue for an adjusted allocation of the 
budget over different measures.  
Overall, the EURLs  activities were considered to be efficient. 70% of the  EURLs think that 
modern techniques (e -learning, webinars) could be used to increase efficiency, but these are 
very costly to develop and introduce, and cannot fully replace face to fac e meetings that is 
needed for in -depth technical discussions, and an essential part of the laboratory networking.  
A small majority of EURLs (58%) consider that EURLs with multiple mandates can work 
more efficiently than EURLs with a single mandate. Howeve r, economy of scale might only 
be reached for administrative and organizational aspects of EURL activities (workshops, 
sending out samples for PTs), but not for technically highly advanced laboratory work that is 
very compound -specific. A mandate as EURL f or a limited period of time instead of an 
undefined period of time is considered not efficient by almost all respondents. 55% of 
respondents indicated that the EURL would not gain efficiency when its mandate would be 
extended.  
95% of participants of the su rvey answered that there is sufficient communication between 
them (the NCPs) and the CA in their country on the BTSF  programme. There were no 
suggestions on how to improve the communication. 88% of NCPs answered that there is 
sufficient communication betwe en them and DG SANTE on the BTSF programme. The 
communication to the CA is thought to be efficient by the NCPs. The communication with the 
Commission is overall considered efficient, but could be improved by more meetings and 
minutes of these meetings. Als o, a quick response to questions would make BTSF more 
efficient, since a slow response gives a delay in actions.  
 
COHERENCE  
On coherence for Animal Health measures, all respondents evaluated the animal health 
policy at least complementary and/or synergisti c. Regarding whether state aid related to 
animal health emergencies was consistent with the Regulation emergency funding, 
respondents from the Commission and the MSs’ CAs evaluated it as neutral to 
complementary. EU branch organisations consider the Regula tion to be complementary and 
or synergistic. Two respondents (out of 40) evaluated state aid to be contradictory.  
On coherence for Plant Health measures, the vast majority considers the Regulation as 
coherent with EU plant health policies. 40% considers it  as synergistic and 50% as 
complementary. Only 1 respondent observed contradictions.  
On EURLs , most NCPs are familiar with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which is considered 
fully (44%) or to a large extent (34%) coherent with the Regulation, according to th e 
 
10 
 Directors of EURLs. Horizon 2020 and Council Directive 2000/29/EC are not known by most 
participants. In the few cases that director of EURLs are familiar with H2020 and Council 
Directive 2000/29/EC, they are of the opinion that these are in synergy with  the Regulation.   
When asked about the coherence of BTSF , 41% of NCPs indicated that Regulation (EC) No 
882/2004 is fully in line with the training programme. Even if most NCPs answered "NA/Do 
not know" for Horizon 2020 and Council Directive 2000/29/EC, 2 5% of them considers the 
programme coherent to a large extent with Council Directive 2000/29/EC, and 18% of NCPs 
with Horizon 2020. For Horizon 2020 and Council Directive 200/29/EC however, the survey 
showed that the knowledge is not sufficient for most NC Ps.  
No conflicts of BTSF with other EU regulation were identified.  
 
2.3 STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS  
On the basis of the literature review and the on -line survey, a questionnaire was prepared as 
guidance for semi -structured interviews with representatives of t he European Commission 
(DG SANTE and DG AGRI), and with selected stakeholders (CAs, industry representatives, 
targeted NGOs) in a number of MSs.  
The interviews were carried out by team members using an interview guide to facilitate 
uniformity in the way q uestions are addressed and are answered (avoiding interviewer -bias). 
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 f ill information gaps that remained after the other stakeholder consultations.  
A number of scoping interviews with Commission's representatives involved in the 
implementation of the Regulation and with its evaluation were also conducted at the start of 
the evaluation study.  
 
2.4 TARGETED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS FOR MAIN STUDY  
Based on the assessment of the results from the questionnaires, several stakeholders were 
identified to be interviewed. Due to unavailability and/or unresponsiveness and the mandatory 
deadlines of the reporting, no main stakeholder interview could be completed for France.  
The interviews with the main stakeholders in general confirmed the findings of the on -line 
questionnaire. There was general agreement among stakeholders that co -fundin g opportunities 
provided by the Regulation on animal health are an essential tool to ensure disease prevention 
and the timely and efficient control of animal diseases. Some specific points were mentioned 
by Copa -Cogeca (the EU union representing farmers an d agricultural co -operatives), which 
strongly supports the animal emergency measures, but recommends preventive measures that 
“address the sources where outbreaks are”. This confirms an overall call for specific attention 
for preventive measures in the Reg ulation.  
 
2.5 CASE STUDY INTERVIEWS  
Based on the assessment of the results from the desk study and questionnaires, several 
stakeholders were identified to be interviewed for the case studies. Due to unavailability 
and/or unresponsiveness of some stakehold ers and the mandatory deadlines of the reporting, 
 
11 
 no interviews could be completed for salmonellosis, and for bovine ovine and caprine 
brucellosis.  
The case study interviews overall confirmed the findings from the targeted on -line 
questionnaire, but allowe d a more in -depth evaluation of the interaction between the 
Commission and CAs, especially in terms of flexibility and administrative burden.  
3. FEEDBACK TO STAKEHOLDERS  
The participants to the open consultation and targeted consultation have been informed about 
the nature and set -up of the evaluation, and that the findings would be used for analysis, and 
that the EU would communicate about the results of the study. The interviewees received an 
interview transcript for review after the interview was  conducted, with the invitation to amend 
or approve the transcript.