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 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
Date: 2017-09-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, disease prevention, distribution of EU funding, food safety, general budget (EU), health control, plant health control, veterinary inspection

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 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 {COM(2017) 546 final} {SWD(2017) 314 final} {SWD(2017) 315 final}  
 
 
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  aspects  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 phytosanitary 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  farmers, consumers, food-industry  and  retailers 
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 nature 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  stakeholders  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, but 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 obtained 
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 
2 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_sante_142_evaluation_cff_en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/dgs_consultations/food/consultation_20161213_food-and-
feed-exp_en.htm 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
1.2 TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

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  considered  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 that 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 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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  preventive 
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 categories 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 Regulation 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 and 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 valid 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  other 
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 respondents 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 available.  

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.  

4 

 
 
On relevance for  BTSF  activities, replies to  the targeted questionnaires  to  National Contact 
Points  (NCPs)  in  EU  and  third  countries,  showed  that  the  relevance  for  the  BTSF  training 
subjects  was  evident.  The  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%  versus 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  veterinary  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  destruction  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;  enhance  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 the 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  measures,  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 additional 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 

5 

 
 
 
actions  on  plant  health  control,  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 co-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 
Europe,  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 consequences 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 
support. 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  trainings  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  relation  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 national 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 knowledge 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 the 
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  contributed  to 

6 

 
 
 
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  co-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  contributes  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; 
coordination 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 
administrative 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 countries 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  respect  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. MSs 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 take 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 
contribution  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 respect 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  indicates  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  differs  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 

7 

 
 
                                                            
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,  deciding  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; workshops 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 testing 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,  while  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 emergency 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:  preventing 
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  diseases.  A  number  of 
respondents indicated that the timeframe between the implementation of the measure and the 

8 

 
 
 
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  satisfied 
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  respondents  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  face  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. However, 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  for  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  survey  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  between  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.  Also,  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  synergistic.  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  Regulation  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  the 

9 

 
 
 
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, 25% 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 NCPs.  

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  the  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 questions 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 fill 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-funding 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  and  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 Regulation.  

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 stakeholders and the mandatory deadlines of the reporting, 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
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  allowed  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. 

11