REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the outcome of the EU co-financed programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonosis over the period of 2005-2011
Date: 2014-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, animal disease, co-financing, veterinary inspection, zoonosis













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0115 - EN











|



52014DC0115

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the outcome of the EU co-financed programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonosis over the period of 2005-2011 /* COM/2014/0115 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the outcome of the EU co-financed
programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and
zoonosis over the period of 2005-2011
Executive summary
The present report focuses on the outcome
of the implementation of the EU
co-financed programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal
diseases and zoonosis, as
required by Article 41 of Council Decision 2009/470/EC on expenditure in the
veterinary field[1].

The co-funding for the animal diseases
eradication, control and monitoring programmes (hereinafter “veterinary
programmes”) represents by far the largest amount of expenditure under the EU
food safety budget[2].
Over the period under evaluation, more than EUR 1,17 billion were spent by the
EU -for co-funding the implementation of programmes targeting thirteen diseases[3]. During these 7 years,
all 27 Member States (MSs) (EU-25 until 31st December 2006)
benefitted from EU contribution.
In spite of some areas of concern, the
veterinary programmes continue to play a crucial role in the effective
management of the targeted animal diseases, by ensuring disease surveillance
and eradication, better targeting of the control of trans-boundary diseases of
high EU relevance as well as prevention and rapid reaction to emerging and
re-emerging animal diseases, which are a cornerstone of the EU Animal Health
Strategy. This, in turn, offers clear net economic benefits to the relevant
sectors of the EU economy and to the smooth functioning of the single market,
as well as the protection of consumers and public health (in the case of zoonosis),
which represent key public goods for EU society.
Taking into account future threats and
challenges of the EU co-financed veterinary programmes, the analysis conducted allows
a certain number of conclusions on future actions needed to improve the
management of the programmes, notably: better prioritisation, reduction of costs
for managing the programmes for both the Commission and the MSs, improvement of
design, implementation and cost-effectiveness analysis of the EU co-financed
veterinary programmes.
On 29 June 2011, the Commission has
proposed a new regulation[4]
covering the whole area of food safety expenditure. The aim is to optimize the
existing financial framework, leading to increased simplification,
transparency, flexibility, and to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the
expenditure on food safety, including veterinary programmes. The proposal will
be formally adopted by the co-legislators in the first half of 2014.
1.           Introduction
Article 41 of Council Decision 2009/470/EC on
expenditure in the veterinary field provides that “every four years, the
Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report
on the animal health situation and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of
programmes in the various Member States, including details of the criteria
adopted”[5].
Within the current monitoring and evaluation
system, no specific tools to measure the cost-effectiveness of the food and
feed spending have been implemented, therefore the present report mainly
relates to a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the programmes implemented. 
It is to be noted that many veterinary
programmes, especially eradication activities (e.g. tuberculosis), are by their
nature long-termed activities. Therefore results are often achieved a long time
after the implementation of specific measures.
The present report, being the first produced in
this framework, extends the evaluation period to the seven years 2005-2011. 
2.           Background
The EU financial contribution for animal
diseases eradication, control and monitoring programmes represents by far the
largest amount of expenditure under the EU food safety budget. It is aimed to
progressively eliminate animal diseases and to implement disease monitoring
measures in the MSs and the EU as a whole. It is also part of the
overall EU Animal Health Strategy[6]
aimed at ensuring a high level of animal health, public health and consumer
protection. The ultimate objectives of the veterinary programmes are to
guarantee a high level of protection of both animal health and public health,
to encourage the improvement of the productivity of the livestock sector and to
contribute to the economic sustainability of the sectors directly or indirectly
affected by an animal disease outbreak[7].
The animal diseases and zoonosis which are eligible
for EU co-financing are listed in Annex I to Council Decision 2009/470/EC.
The prioritisation of the funding is decided
and adjusted by the Commission on an annual basis to ensure that it is fully
appropriate to the situation actually prevailing. The greatest weight is given
to diseases of either animal health or public health importance (such as zoonosis)
and those which have major economic impact due to trade implications and income
losses for the livestock sector in the EU. The proposed prioritisation is
discussed with the MSs through the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
Animal Health[8]
(SCoFCAH). The Commission’s internal assessment is based on data submitted by
MSs, Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)[9]
reports, financial audit reports[10],
and results of the Task Force for monitoring disease eradication[11] (TF).
In 2006, in order to ensure a more efficient
and effective achievement of their objectives, a multi-annual approach for
veterinary programmes was introduced.
EU co-funded veterinary programmes cover a wide
range of measures including vaccination, testing of animals and compensation
for slaughtering or culling. Generally, the EU financial contribution is at the
rate of 50% of the cost incurred by the MSs to implement specific measures[12] up to a maximum
amount, with the exception of the costs of Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies (TSE) monitoring, testing and genotyping which have been
funded at 100% up to a ceiling, and the costs associated with rabies programmes
(purchase and distribution of vaccines, laboratory tests) which have been
co-financed at 75% since 2010. In 2011, all diseases which were previously
co-financed at 50% were co-funded at a higher rate, i.e. 60%, as a contribution
to budgetary recovery of MSs struggling with financial and economic crises. Over
the period 2005-2011, the overall EU payments amounted to more than EUR 1,17
billion[13]
to cover thirteen diseases’ programmes. 
It has to be noticed that the total amount of
funding varied greatly depending on the nature of the disease as well as on the
number of programmes approved for each disease.
During these 7 years, all 27 MSs (EU-25 until 31st
December 2006) benefitted from EU co-financing. The distribution of funding in
the period under consideration per, respectively, co-financed disease and MS,
is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2 of Commission Staff Working Document
SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter III.[14]
Figure 1 Distribution of payments per MSs (2005-2011)
Figure 2 Distribution of payments per diseases (2005 2011)
Figure 3
Evolution of funding (2005-2011)
 
The evolution of funding (Figure 3) shows
a very significant increase since 2009: this upward trend is mainly due to the
significant increase in funding eradication programmes for bluetongue, notably
in France and Spain (see Commission Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013,
Chapter IV.2 for further details) and bovine tuberculosis, particularly in
Ireland and UK (see Commission Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter
IV.3 for further details). It is also due to the increased funding rate for all
diseases in 2011, as explained above.
Over the period under consideration, two MSs,
notably France and Spain, absorbed almost 38% of the overall EU contribution,
as shown in Figure 1. The other main recipients, whose aggregate absorption represented
another 35% of the EU payments were: Italy (9,5%), United Kingdom (10,1%), Germany (7,7%) and Ireland (7,7%).
The remaining 27% of expenditure was
distributed between further 21 MSs, whose individual allocation exceeded 3% in
the cases of Poland, Portugal and Netherlands only.
The evolution of payments addressing the six
main recipient countries is illustrated in Figure 4, which also provide
information on the distribution of payments per disease within each MS[15].
Figure 4 Main recipient MSs for veterinary programmes
(2005-2011)
 
 
  
As shown by Figure 2, more than 74% of
the EU payments made in the period under consideration addressed three main
veterinary programmes. The EU invested in the monitoring of TSE and the
eradication of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies (BSE) and Scrapie some
44,5% of the overall co-financing. The second important allocation (amounting
to about 15,5% of EU co-funding) covered the eradication of Bovine
Tuberculosis, followed by the eradication of Bluetongue (more than 14%).
Another 20,5% was distributed between four
diseases, notably: the eradication of Bovine Brucellosis (6%), Rabies (5,5%),
Ovine and Caprine Brucellosis (4,7%); the control of Salmonella (4,3%).
The co-financing of programmes for the
remaining seven diseases represented the residual 5,2% of the EU spending.
3.           EU animal health situation over the period 2005-2011
Overall, the qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of the veterinary programmes co-funded at EU level and implemented
in the period 2005-2011, shows that they effectively contributed to improve the
animal health status within the EU, therefore providing a good value for money.
Positive outcomes have been achieved in most cases, except for certain diseases
in some MSs where areas of concern still remain. 
In some cases, despite the progress, results
tend to vary between diseases and there are still some EU regions where local problems
persist. Reasons for this include epidemiological factors - notably the role
played by wildlife or vectors - which affect the effectiveness of the measures
taken within certain programmes, but also specific programme implementation
issues at MS level.
The MSs affected often faced structural
difficulties including budgetary or staffing problems (insufficient staff or
inappropriate allocation of staff) which, despite all efforts, hampered the
proper implementation of the actions defined in the programmes. The Commission
aims at further support the MSs in addressing these deficiencies through, for
example, reducing the costs associated with the management of programmes, and
improving the prioritisation of diseases.
Failures are also attributable to
socio-cultural issues, such as inadequate coordination between national and
regional/local players, or lack of dialogue (communication) between public and
private sector stake holders. To address these shortcomings, the role of the
Task Force in disseminating best practices and sharing MSs' experiences will be
further enhanced.
The results of the analysis are discussed per
disease in the following sections.
3.1.        Notable achievements
In most cases, the targeted diseases have been
effectively contained and incidence or presence has been brought under control.
Many of them have been progressively eradicated from large areas of the EU.
This is evidenced by a significant expansion of “disease free zones” in the EU
during this period (e.g. bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and classical
swine fever)[16]. 
•        The
implementation of the compulsory BSE monitoring and eradication
programmes in cattle was a necessary element in a series of measures taken at
EU level that led to a dramatic decline in the detected BSE cases within the
period 2005-2011 and an average annual decrease of 38% has been observed. By
2011, only 28 positive cases were found from over 6,3 million tests performed.
Trade in live cattle, beef and bovine products from MSs most affected have been
restored, and consumer confidence has returned. The EU compulsory measures to
monitor Scrapie and eradicate the disease in infected sheep and
goat flocks/herd, resulted in a much better knowledge of the distribution of
scrapie and, through discriminatory testing, the assurance that the incidence
of BSE in sheep and goats is now nil or negligible.
•        The Bluetongue
programmes have played an important role in the control and eradication of this
disease, especially for the control of the epidemics caused by serotypes BTV-8
and BTV-1 that appeared unexpectedly in 2006 and 2007. The EU mobilised
significant financial resources allowing MSs to launch a coordinated
vaccination campaign across all infected areas. This campaign has proven very
successful as bluetongue has effectively been brought under control and BTV-1
and BTV-8 serotypes virtually eliminated from all over Europe.
•        In the case of Rabies, the co-funded oral vaccination programmes, launched at the end
of the 1980s, have proved very successful, as they have led to the steady eradication of rabies from several MSs. Between
2005 and 2011, the total number of positive rabies cases at EU level has
decreased very significantly from 2,575 cases to 518.
The eradication of rabies from Europe is now in sight. This is a unique
situation in the world as the EU has achieved rabies eradication on a scale
which has never been experienced anywhere else before[17]. The disease has now been confined to the
east of the EU and the Commission is finalising the provision of funding for
the creation of vaccination belts through bilateral agreements between
interested Member States with their respective neighbours where rabies is still
a threat[18]. 
•        The
compulsory co-financed control programmes for Salmonella, which have
been implemented step-by-step since 2007, led to a notable improvement of the
situation in poultry. The number of reported human cases in the EU has declined
by 50%. The decreasing trend at EU level of the human cases, between 2005 and
2011 was statistically significant, with a mean annual reduction of 12% (Data
from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)[19]. The reduction of prevalence of Salmonella serovars of public
health relevance has been made through the effective and coordinated
implementation of national salmonellosis control programmes (including, inter
alia, routine monitoring programmes by both the farmer and the competent
authority) in specified poultry populations targeting those serovars most
responsible for human infections.
•        Avian Influenza (AI), which has made increasing incursions into the EU in recent
years mostly through wild bird spread, has been successfully contained with the
support of the compulsory surveillance programmes. Their implementation has
proven effective in providing early warning for the timely detection of
outbreaks of both high and low pathogenic strains, reducing the risk of both
economic losses to farmers, and also the emergence of a zoonotic strain
dangerous for humans. Following crises, these were also extremely useful in
allowing early detection of High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in wild
birds, therefore preventing further spread in commercial flocks and reducing risk
of exposure to humans. As from 2008 the number of both wild birds and domestic
birds surveyed declined. The decrease in the number of surveyed birds has to be
seen in relation to the positive trend in the number of outbreaks occurring where
a significant decline since 2007 both for domestic and wild birds could be
observed. In 2007 25 HPAI outbreaks occurred in domestic birds while 0 in 2011.
No outbreaks occurred in wild birds from 2010.
•        Classical Swine Fever (CSF) had been eradicated in most EU15 MSs by 2004, except for certain
areas in Germany, Luxemburg and France where the disease still occurred in wild
boar. The enlargement of the EU has led to increased risks, due to CSF
reservoirs in the central Europe, the Balkan region as well as an endemic
situation of CSF in Bulgaria and Romania at the time of EU accession. Following
the increase in funding to implement control measures, in recent years, in
these regions good progress in CSF eradication has been achieved. The largest
outbreaks during this period were in domestic pigs in Romania between 2006 and 2007 and in wild boar in Hungary in 2008. In 2009 no outbreak in domestic
pigs occurred and in 2010 and 2011, no outbreaks in both domestic and wild
animals were reported.
•        In the
case of Bovine Tuberculosis (TB), epidemiological data for MSs supported
by co-funded programmes, indicate that between 2005 and 2011 some progress
has been made towards the eradication of the disease. In Spain, Italy, Portugal and Poland, there was a clear decrease in the cases of bovine tuberculosis
and Poland obtained “officially tuberculosis free” (OTF) status in 2009
as did several regions of Italy in the last few years. The epidemiological
situation of tuberculosis in Ireland (EU co-financed programmes started in
2009) showed some improvements. The situation needs to be confirmed in the
following years.
On the whole, significant progress has
also been made in eradicating both Bovine Brucellosis and Ovine and
Caprine Brucellosis, with only some parts of the EU still affected by these
diseases.
•        Bovine Brucellosis (BB) has been nearly totally eradicated in most EU countries: since
2005, the prevalence of BB in cattle tested in those MSs with co-funded
programmes decreased or remained at a low level in most countries (Cyprus,
Ireland, Spain and in the territory of the Azores). In Northern Ireland, an increase was observed after 2005, albeit starting from a very low
base, with a decline in the level of incidence from 2009. The successful
implementation of the programmes has resulted in the granting of ‘officially
brucellosis free’ (OBF) status for the Republic of Ireland as a whole in 2009,
as well as several regions and provinces in Italy, and the Spanish Canary
Islands. 
•        The
implementation of the eradication programmes for Ovine and Caprine Brucellosis
made excellent progress in Cyprus, northern and central Italy, Portugal and Spain, where the herd prevalence considerably declined between 2005 and 2011. When
extending the time frame of the epidemiological analysis, the success in Spain is even more remarkable: the country reported a considerable decrease in herd
prevalence, with a decline from some 30% in 1999 to 0.54% in 2011.
•        The
successful implementation of the programmes to eradicate Enzootic Bovine Leucosis
(EBL) has resulted in a significant decline of the incidence of the disease
in those countries at risk, notably Portugal, Poland and Italy.
•        A similar
positive trend is observed for Aujeszky’s disease (AD), and an
increasing number of MSs have become disease-free. Over the period 2005-2011
the key result of the eradication programmes is that the disease has been
eradicated from Germany, Slovakia, and many regions of the UK while progress has also been made in several other regions. Following the success of
implementation of these programmes and a re-prioritisation of the diseases by
Council in 2006[20], EU co-financing has been stopped in 2010.
3.2.        Partial success
•        Bovine Brucellosis: in Portugal and Italy, due to particular circumstances
related to the implementation of the bovine brucellosis eradication programmes
in certain regions, there are significant variations in performance at regional
level. In Italy the presence of bovine/buffalo brucellosis differs
significantly by region. In northern and central Italy several regions and
provinces are officially free, whereas in the southern regions the prevalence
and the incidence of the disease are still high in bovines and buffaloes. In
continental Portugal, there are also geographic variations in terms of the
prevalence of the disease, which is higher in certain regions compared to the
rest of the country. Nonetheless, there are notable improvements, particularly,
where the implementation of the vaccination programme in the Azores has yielded
excellent results with herd prevalence falling from above 3% in 2006 to just
over 1% in 2011.
3.3.        Areas of concern
•        Ovine and Caprine Brucellosis: Greece and southern Italy are the main areas of
concern in eradicating the disease, with particular implementation issues of
the programmes that adversely affected the overall performance of the programmes.
It is important to note that where programmes have failed to perform due to
poor or incorrect implementation at MS or local level, the Commission has
effectively taken corrective action or imposed penalties in terms of not
approving the programme or reducing the funding in subsequent years or
reducing the contribution for the years concerned.
•        Bovine Tuberculosis in UK: co-financed eradication programmes have been implemented
across the country since 2010, covering the whole territory except Scotland (officially free from the disease since 2009). The epidemiological situation was a
cause for concern during the studied period and continues to require careful
attention, particularly in England: the measures of the approved programmes
have to be properly implemented.
•        African swine fever in Italy (Sardinia): the disease has been completely eradicated from the EU
territory, except for Sardinia. In spite of the favourable downwards trend in
the previous years, there was a serious resurgence of the disease during the
second half of 2011, due mainly to a poor implementation of the approved
programmes.
4.           Cost-benefit
analysis of veterinary programmes over the period 2005-2011
The performance of the measures implemented
under EU co-funding over the period 2005-2010 was evaluated both internally and
by means of external studies conducted in the last few years[21], based on tangible
results of EU action to support the MSs in eradicating, controlling and
monitoring certain animal diseases. These studies have shown the overall
success of the veterinary programmes but also highlighted a number of
weaknesses where particular implementation issues adversely affected the outcome
of the programme, as described already in section 3. These drawbacks are
expected to be addressed by, for example, the ongoing modernisation of the
financial management tools and the optimisation of the activities carried out
by the task force.
It has to be reminded (see section 2) that in
2011, the eligible measures, previously co-financed at 50%, were co-funded at a
higher rate, i.e. 60% and an additional measure was co-financed[22]. 
Commission Staff Working Document
SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter IV presents the results of the cost-benefit analysis for
the diseases which represent a larger amount of the EU financial contribution
for veterinary programmes. 
5.           Administrative burden linked to EU co-funded veterinary
programmes
Administering EU funds and their spending requires
considerable resources, both at national and at EU-level. The resource needed does
not significantly change in proportion to the size of the programmes. In each
case there is a requirement for preparation and scrutiny of the programme,
preparation and adoption of a Commission Implementing Decision, financial
administration and performance checks.
Despite the considerable costs associated with
applying for and receiving small financial contributions, MSs acknowledge the
benefits of those payments in particular in relation to capacity and consensus
building reasons. 
From 2005 to 2011, 825 payments were made, for
a total EU co-financing of EUR 1.174.253.269,46. The figure below presents
the evolution of funding over this period, grouping payments according to their
value.
As it can be observed, payments below or equal
to EUR 200.000 (four lowest thresholds) represented a very small share of
total EU co-financing over the period, slightly exceeding 1,5% of the overall
amount. On the other hand, the sum of these four lowest categories accounted
for almost 42% of the total number of payments.
Figure 5 Distribution of payments per progressive
amounts (2005-2011)
On the contrary, the highest threshold (payments
above EUR 10.000.0000), alone accounted for more than 35% of the EU funding
over the period, whilst corresponding to only 2,6% of the number of payments
made.
This means that a significant amount of
payments are of relatively small value, particularly:
•        almost
19% of the payments were below or equal to EUR 25.000, corresponding to about
0,1% of the total funding;
•        more
than 26% of the payments did not exceed EUR 50.000, representing some 0,3% of
the amount co-financed in the period considered.
More detailed information about the individual
value of payments in the frame of the EU co-financing for veterinary programmes
can be found in 
Commission Staff Working Document
SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter V.
6.           Conclusions and way forward
Over the period under consideration, the EU
co-funded veterinary programmes have demonstrated their catalytic effect in achieving:
•        the improvement of both public and
animal health: reducing disease
prevalence/incidence; safeguarding public health (in the case of zoonosis); fulfilling
their role as a key disease prevention/management tool in the context of the EU
Animal Health Strategy;
•        benefits in economic terms for the
EU as whole: protecting the value of the sector;
contributing to market stability; ensuring safe trade; increasing extra-EU
trade; reducing human health costs[23].
The main strengths which contributed to
the success of EU co-financed veterinary programmes were:
•        Bottom
up approach in identifying and addressing Animal Health-issues, being programmes designed at MSs level and top-down approach
ensuring respect of EU rules and criteria, being programmes approved by the
Commission.
•        Flexibility
in allocating available resources thanks to annual adjustments (according to
epidemiological situation and disease prioritisation) and to the possibility to
apply different financial rates.
•        Capacity
of the EU system to react to exceptionally serious health situations (e.g. BSE
crises, bluetongue epidemics) using limited financial resources in relation to
the overall high economic value of the animal sectors.
•        EU
sustainability of financial contribution allowing medium-long term planning for
veterinary programmes in MSs.
•        Regional
cooperation approach providing valuable assistance to candidate countries and
to third countries bordering the EU, which prevented the introduction of
diseases in the EU (also ensuring sustainability of results achieved to date in
MSs).
•        Sharing
of knowledge, experience and best practices among MSs also in the context of
the Task Forces for monitoring disease eradication.
However, a certain number of weaknesses have
been highlighted: some of them have already been partially addressed by the Commission;
others still need to be so in the near future:
•        Lack
of a systematic approach, based on a clear set of objectives and indicators, that
would help to evaluate the performance of programmes implemented. This also limits
the possibility to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the different measures.
•        Significant
differences in MSs veterinary systems and livestock structures which leads to variability
in programme implementation, risking to jeopardise results achieved at EU level,
particularly when dealing with trans-boundary diseases. 
•        Submission
of multi-annual programmes by the MSs is still not sufficient, limiting the
possibility to focus on the progress being made to clear medium term objectives
and to reduce the efforts needed to administer the program.
In the meantime, over the period to 2020, the
EU will also face a number of specific challenges, possibly compromising
the effectiveness of MSs programmes. These mostly relate to:
•        The potential re-emergence of
current priority diseases:
–              
Trans-boundary movement of susceptible wildlife
animals (particularly CSF, ASF and Rabies in Eastern and Baltic MSs).
–              
Illegal meat imports from non-EU third countries
(particularly CSF and ASF along the Eastern border of the EU).
–              
Detection of sporadic cases of BSE, and
uncertainties with regards to ‘atypical BSE’ (all MSs).
•        The potential introduction of
emerging diseases:
–              
Risk for incursion in border EU regions of
hazards present in neighbouring third countries.
–              
Risk related to the possible introduction of
emerging diseases and re-introduction of known pathogens into the EU from neighbouring
third countries.
•        Main changing risk factors:
–              
Increasing complexity of international supply
chains.
–              
Increasing risk of vector borne diseases and the
possible effects of climate change in terms of altering animal disease
emergence and spread patterns.
–              
Potential relaxation of surveillance measures
when the disease situation has achieved the primary objective.
–              
Efforts to increase the sustainability of public
finances both at MSs and at EU level, may lead to a budget reduction that can
be detrimental on programme sustainability. This will mainly affect programmes which
require long term continuity in order to achieve desired outcomes. Results and
impacts of the programmes need to be assessed in the medium-long term to fully evaluate
the performance of the programmes: drawing conclusions by comparing results on
a short term basis can be misleading, as achievements in the field of animal
health can only be demonstrated over a certain period of time (depending on the
epidemiology of the disease).
On 29 June 2011, the Commission has
proposed a new regulation covering the whole area of food safety expenditure.
The aim is to optimize the existing financial framework, leading to increased
simplification, transparency, flexibility, and to demonstrate the
cost-effectiveness of the expenditure on food safety, including veterinary
programmes. The proposal will be formally adopted by the co-legislators in the
first half of 2014.
[1]               OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 30. Following several
amendments, Council Decision 2009/470/EC codified, repealed and replaced
Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field.
[2]               In 2011, some 75% of the total budget executed for
Food and Feed was allocated to veterinary programmes.
[3]               Avian Influenza, African Swine Fever, Aujeszky’s
Disease, Bovine Brucellosis, Bovine Tuberculosis, Bluetongue, Classical Swine
Fever, Enzootic Bovine Leucosis, Rabies, Enzootic Salmonellosis, Ovine and
Caprine Brucellosis, Swine Vesicular Disease, TSEs (BSE and Scrapie).
[4]               COM(2011) 398 final.
[5]               The report is also based on the outcome of two
evaluations conducted in this frame:         
“Preparation of a report on the outcome of the EU co-financed animal disease
eradication and monitoring programmes in the MSs and the EU as a whole” (2011,
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium).            
“Evaluation of the Eradication, Monitoring and Control Programmes for Animal
Diseases” (2013, ICF- GHK).
[6]               Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of Regions COM 539 (2007) final - A new Animal Health Strategy for
the European Union (2007-2013) where “Prevention is better than cure”.
[7]               Some figures about the economic significance of the
livestock sector in the EU over the period under consideration are given in Commission
Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter VIII.
[8]               Set up by REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31,
1.2.2002, in order to assist the Commission in ensuring a more
effective, comprehensive approach to the food chain. It is composed of
representatives of the MSs and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
[9]               The FVO is part of the Health and Consumers
Directorate-General. Its mission is to assure, by means of audits, inspections
and related activities, effective control systems and to evaluate compliance
with EU standards within the EU, and in third countries in relation to their
exports to the EU. 
[10]             Audit Reports are addressed to management and other
stakeholders and summarise results of the audit work conducted by the Financial
Audit Service of the Commission (DG Health and Consumers). 
[11]             This Task Force (TF) was established in March 2000 in
line with action 29 of the White Paper on Food Safety. The TF is formed by
representatives of each Member States under Commission responsibility and
annual or bi-annual meeting are held in Brussels. Its objectives are: (a) to
improve animal disease eradication and (b) to improve the cost-benefit-ratio of
animal disease eradication programmes that are co-financed by the EU. In
addition, six TF sub-groups have been created: bovine tuberculosis, bovine
brucellosis, ovine and caprine brucellosis, rabies, salmonellosis, and
classical swine fever, to deal with specific diseases and to provide technical
support. Reports of the TF meetings are published on Commission web: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/index_en.htm
[12]             Not all the measures implemented by MS are co-financed
by EU that can contribute only to specific measures, depending on the disease,
as listed in the Commission Decisions approving annually the veterinary
programmes. See for more details Commission Implementing Decision2012/761/EU-
OJ L 336, 8.12.2012, p. 83. 
[13]             The balance for 2011 excludes some programmes which are
still under on-going financial audits. 
[14]             The final EU payments for veterinary programmes
implemented by the MSs and previously approved by the European Commission are
presented in Commission Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter III.
[15]             Details EU co-financing in the remaining 21 MSs are
presented in Commission Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter VI.
[16]             More details about officially disease free zones are
given in Commission Staff Working Document SANCO/11377/2013, Chapter IX.
[17]             In recent years, due to a high infection pressure from
the Western Balkan (WB) countries, the EU is also financing cooperation
activities on rabies (and CSF) with WB within the Instrument for Pre-accession
Assistance (IPA).
[18]             Third Countries that are at
the moment being considered under this plan include Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
[19]             The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was set up in
January 2002 as an independent source of scientific advice and communication on
risks associated with the food chain. It was created as part of a comprehensive
programme to improve EU food safety, ensure a high level of consumer protection
and restore and maintain confidence in the EU food supply.
[20]                    Council Decision
of 19 December 2006 amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the
veterinary field OJ L 397, 30.12.2006, p. 22–27.
[21]             See footnote 2.
[22]             A lump sum per domestic animal sampled was introduced.
[23]             For further details see Preparation of a report on the
outcome of the EU co-financed animal disease eradication and monitoring
programmes in the ms and the EU as a whole (2011, Food Chain Evaluation
Consortium).