COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION 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, Directive 2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, administrative check, animal nutrition, animal welfare, food safety, health control, marketing standard, plant health control, plant propagation, public expenditure, veterinary inspection

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.6.2013  
SWD(2013) 194 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION 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, Directive 
2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Council Decisions 
66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC 

{COM(2013) 327 final} 
{SWD(2013) 195 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

1. For some years, the Commission, specifically DG Health and Consumers, has been working on 
the  revision  of  EU  policy  for  animal  health,  animal  welfare,  plant  health,  plant  reproductive 
material, 
the  effective 
implementation of these policies (hereinafter together referred to as "food safety policy"). 

the  official  controls  that  underpin 

food  safety,  and 

feed  and 

2. The  overall  budget  of  €1.891bn  for  2014-2020  (i n  current  prices)  for  the  food  safety  financial 
framework has already been proposed by the Commission within the context of the Multiannual 
Financial  Framework  (MFF).  Therefore,  this  impact  assessment  is  intended  to  consider  the 
likely impacts of the options available for the financial framework.  

3. This is intended to be a proportionate level of analysis in line with the Commission guidelines 

on Impact Assessment. 

Supporting Impact Assessments and Consultations 

4. Because  all  four  policies  have  been  under  revision  for  some  time,  they  are  individually 

supported by their own impact assessments. 

2: Problem definition 

5. EU financial support for food safety, animal health, plant health and official controls, is generally 
considered to add value over and above the amounts contributed and to work fairly well in its 
existing format. However, the revision of the overall MFF and of the individual policies presents 
an opportunity to assess how the current situation could be improved further, as well as tying it 
more effectively to the Commission and the EU objectives, including the Europe 2020 goals.  

Current policy and financial framework 

6. The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  EU co-funded  activities  have  their  legal basis  in  one  of  the 
three  following  pieces  of  legislation:  Council  Decision  2009/470/EC;  Directive  2000/29/EC; 
Regulation 882/2004.  

7. The 2011 food safety budget was just under €3 14.6m. It was allocated as follows: Veterinary 
Programmes, 75%; Plant Health, 6.1%; Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) initiative, 4.5%; 
EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs), 4.5%: animal health emergency measures, 3.2%. 

Problem identification 

8. Driver 1: The current legal framework is over-complex and sometimes out of date. 

•  Problems: 

o  Lack of alignment with the newly proposed MFF 2014-2020 
o  Potential administrative burdens for MSs in keeping up to date and fully complying 

with administrative and funding requirements. 

9. The new MFF will move the 'food safety' budget lines from Heading 2 of the overall EU budget 
into Heading 3, to be called 'Security and Citizenship'. This means that the current legal base 
for  financial  controls  and  management  of  funding  (Regulation  1290/2005)  will  no  longer  cover 
food and feed spending. Moreover, should exceptional emergencies arise requiring EU financial 
support, there will legally be no access to the 'Reserve for crises in the agricultural sector'.  

10. The  various  financial  provisions  are  currently  found  in  a  number  of  different  legislative 
instruments.  This  in  itself  can  be  confusing  and  unwieldy  for  MSs  seeking  to  understand  the 
legislation, with associated administrative burden.  

11. There is also the problem of the changing sectorial legislation. Without the according changes 

to the financial provisions, they will remain unaligned to the new objectives and measures. 

12. The current lack of clarity in funding rates presents MSs with a great deal of uncertainty when 

planning programmes.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
13. Driver 2: The existing financial management tools are not optimal. 

•  Problems: 

o Lack of clarity in eligible measures for funding and their costs 
o Complex administrative arrangements 
o Inefficient allocation of available resources. 

14. At  present,  many  of  the  administrative  arrangements  for  gaining  programme  approval  and 

funding reimbursement are overly complex.  

15. The  current  financial  provisions  do  not  set  the  most  clear  and  consistent  objectives  and 

indicators, therefore programmes cannot always be consistently assessed and improved. 

16. The definition of eligible measures and associated costs are not as clear and simple as they 

could be. Eligible measures and funding rates are scattered across different regulations. 

17. Driver  3:  Current  tools  are  not  sufficiently  focused  to  guarantee  the  achievement  of  food 

safety objectives. 

•  Problems: 

o Sub-optimal  implementation  of  individual  policies  and  risk  of  not  fully 

achieving overall policy objectives. 

18. DG  Health  and  Consumers  internal  audits  and  reports,  as  well  as  the  impact  assessments 
carried  out  for  the  individual  policy  areas,  have  identified  a  number  of  issues  that  could  be 
improved to better support policy objectives (e.g. prioritisation and categorisation of diseases). 

The right and justification for EU action 

19. The EU has the right to act in all of these areas, but not exclusive competence. MSs are also 
free to take their own measures, provided that they do not interfere with other EU regulations. 

Necessity test - Why can the objectives not be achieved by MSs? 

20. Good animal health, plant health and food safety and feed safety are a public good with wide 
societal benefits. MSs must act together to prevent or control the spread of diseases or pests, 
using  similar  or  identical  control  and  management  measures.  Coordination  at  EU  level  allows 
for cheaper and more effective action on EU priorities. Third country trade partners might also 
implement  restrictions  on  imports  from  the  EU  as  a  whole  if  a  safety  problem  in  a  MS  is  not 
properly eradicated. 

Added value test - Can objectives be better achieved by the EU? 

21. The specific added value of EU financing or co-financing is that it provides incentives to MSs 
to  put  in  place  and  support  eradication  and  surveillance  actions  which  are  in  the  long-term 
interest  of  the  Union  as  a  whole.  There  are  a  number  of  reasons  why  the  EU  intervenes  to 
support better and safer food and feed, such as: direct economic losses for operators, indirect 
impact on trade, threat to public health.  

3: Objectives 

General Objective 

22. Expenditure covered by this Regulation shall aim to ensure a high level of health for humans, 
animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas and a high level of protection for 
consumers  and  the  environment  while  enabling  the  EU  food  industry  to  operate  in  an 
environment favouring competitiveness and the creation of jobs. 

Specific objectives 

23. To establish a simple, clear, transparent and modern legal framework for food and feed.  

24. To optimise the implementation and functioning of financial management instruments. 

25. To support the policy objectives laid out in feed and food legislation through the effective 

and efficient distribution of the budget.   

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Operational Objectives 

26. These are supported by further, more detailed, operational objectives. 

 4: Policy options 

Option 1: Baseline scenario: No change 

27. No change would involve continuing with the existing set of legislative instruments governing 
the financial framework. This would mean initially that programmes could continue as now, but 
from 2014, there would be no legal base for the management and control of the expenditure. 

Option 2: Bring existing legislation into one legislative instrument 

28. Option 2 examines whether it would be possible to keep all existing measures from existing 

legislation, and bring them together into one regulation.  

Option 3: Single coherent financial programme 

29. Sub-option  3(a):  Establish  a  single  coherent  financial  programme,  largely  using  existing 

financial provisions, but with some improvements, particularly simplification.  

30. Sub-option  3(b):  As  for  sub-option  (a)  but  including  the  introduction  of  aspects  of  Cost  and 

Responsibility Sharing Schemes (CRSS) into the financial regulation.  

Option 4: Stop all EU action 

31. It would in theory be possible to stop all EU financial provisions that contribute towards food 

and feed safety, and require MSs to fund their own programmes and activities.  

5: Analysis of impacts 

32. As  this  is  strictly  a  financial  regulation,  each  option  will  be  analysed  according  to  its  impact 

related to the main problems and specific objectives identified in the assessment: 

•  Administrative and legal impacts 

•  Financial and management impacts 

• 

Impacts on food safety objectives 

Option 1: Baseline scenario: No change 

33. By  the  start of  2014,  the current  framework will  not be  legally  consistent  with the  new  MFF. 

The system will have no specific legal basis for financial management or controls.  

34. Without access to the crisis reserve, MSs would be left to fend for themselves in the face of 
exceptionally  large  emergencies,  as  well  as  the  possible  associated  problems  of  food  safety, 
public health and food security. In the current economic climate, MSs are likely to find this even 
harder than usual to bear.  

35. Continuing  with  the  current  system  would  mean  not  reforming  the  requirements  for  better 
evaluation and according ability to modify programmes to make them more effective, therefore 
inevitably  continuing  with  sub-optimal  and  perhaps  ineffective  programmes.  The  increase  in 
both animal and plant disease, and the corresponding impacts on food safety, public health, and 
food security, is likely to ultimately cost much more to public budgets. 

36. The amendments to the legal provisions required by the sectorial policy reviews would not be 
made. This would affect the possibility to meet the objectives of those reviews, risking a large 
increase in plant and animal health problems. 

Option 2: Bring existing legislation into one legislative instrument 

37. This  option  would  potentially  achieve  objective  1  as  identified  in  section  3,  by  promoting 
simplicity and encouraging better understanding of the legislation, but would not meet either of 
the  other  two  objectives  identified.  It  also  does  not  address  any  of  the  policy  gaps  or  issues 
identified. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
Option  3  (a):  establish  a  single  coherent  financial  programme,  largely  using  existing  financial 
provisions, but with some improvements 

38. Funding  rates  would  be  simplified  to  provide  only  three  different  standard  rates.  This  would 
provide more transparency and consistency across EU measures. The removal of the possibility 
of  funding  measures  with  a  value  of  less  than  €50,000  would  eliminate  a  disproportionate 
administrative burden for both the Commission and MSs. 

39. The  financial  support  for  plant  health  is  proposed  to  be  more  strongly  aligned  with  animal 
health as regards procedures and processes. This also introduces the possibility of streamlining 
administration in both the Commission and MSs.  

40. The  legal  requirements  for  the  processes  to  approve  and  reimburse  programmes  in  the 
Veterinary Programmes and the emergency measures would be simplified. This will significantly 
reduce administrative burden in terms of staff time in the Commission and the MSs and is also 
likely to speed up payments to MSs.  

41. Financial management tools will be improved under this reform. By setting clearer objectives 
and  indicators  for  programmes,  and  following  up  evaluations  more  thoroughly,  veterinary  and 
plants measures are likely to be much more effective. 

42. The review of the official food and feed controls Regulation will strengthen the legal base of 
the BTSF initiative, make its scope more coherent and improve its efficiency and effectiveness.  

43. Option  3a  will  better  support  the  achievement  of  plant  health  objectives  compared  to  the 
baseline  option.  For  example,  plant  health  is  not  currently  covered  by  the  EURLs,  and  plant 
health laboratories are not currently accredited.  

Option 3 (b): Introduction of aspects of Cost and Responsibility Sharing Schemes (CRSS)  

44. Being a development of Option 3(a), impacts already described as for that policy alternative 
can  be  mostly  kept  on  board  when  assessing  Option  3(b).  The  additional  CRSS  element 
introduced  by  this  option  either  entails  extra  impacts  or  modifies  the  expected  outcomes  of 
Option 3(a). 

45. The  likelihood  of  a  CRSS  being  acceptable  to  MSs  and  to  stakeholders  is  small.  The 
introduction of a CRSS system would defeat the objectives of clarity and simplicity. In addition, 
the  current  financial  climate  makes  it  more  difficult  politically  and  culturally  for  MSs  and 
stakeholders  to  accept  a  larger  share  of  the  financial  burden,  even  if  the  overall  burden  from 
outbreaks and pests reduces in the long term. 

Option 4: Stop all EU Action 

46. This option has been discarded without being analysed in great detail. It is self-evident that it 

would meet none of the objectives set out in Section 3.  

47. It  is  unlikely  that  MSs  would  continue  to  fund  eradication  programmes  by  themselves; 
especially  in  the  current  economic  climate.  This  risks  jeopardising  the  achievements  of  the 
investments that have already been made.  

6: Comparing the options 

48. Option 3(a) is the preferred way forward. It is the only alternative to meet all three objectives, 

and with very few (if any) negative impacts. 

49. Option 3(b) has been dismissed for now. However, in the future, with a changed environment, 
it  may  well  offer  the  most  appropriate  solution  to  many  of  the  wider  and  changing  problems 
facing animal and plant health, and could be re-examined. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Comparative assessment of impacts 

Achievement of legal and 
administrative objectives 

Optimising financial 
management tools 

Option 3(a) 
+ 
Reduction of administrative burden on 
PA and private sector 
+ 
Increased efficiency: 
• 
• 

clearer objectives and indicators 
longer-term sustainability 

Option 3(b) 
- 
Additional administrative burden on MSs 
and private sector (in the short-term) 
-/+ 
Short run: (possible) decreased efficiency: 
• 

time needed to familiarise with the new 
system 
lack of acceptability in both MSs and 
private sector 

• 

Support to achievement 
of food and feed 
objectives 

+ 
Increased effectiveness: 
• 

improved consistency among EU 
policies and with international 
commitments 

+ 
Long-run: Increased efficiency 

++ 
Increased effectiveness: 
• 

additional incentives towards 
prevention and eradication 

7: Monitoring and evaluation 

50. An evaluation and ex-post evaluation report are envisaged, and indicators for objectives have 

been developed. The results of the evaluations will be communicated as appropriate. 

6