COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 314 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 315 final} {SWD(2017) 316 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Commission  provides  financial  support  to  a  number  of  measures  within  the 
food  chain  policy,  aimed  to  contribute  to  a  high  level  of  health  for  humans,  animals  and 
plants.  The  provisions  for  the  management  of  this  expenditure  are  laid  down  in  Regulation 
(EU)  No  652/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  May  2014.  In 
particular,  it  covers  the  spending  for  food  chain,  animal  health  and  animal  welfare,  plant 
health  and  plant  reproductive  material.  It  entered  into  force  at  the  end  of  June  2014  and 
established a Common Financial Framework (CFF) for all these areas (hereinafter: the "CFF 
Regulation"). 

Article 42  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  the  Commission  establishes  and  presents  to  the 
European Parliament and to the Council a mid-term evaluation report by 30 June 2017. The 
Commission Report shall assess whether, in terms of their results and impacts, the measures 
referred  to  in  Chapters  I  and  II  of  Title  II  (respectively,  animal  health  and  plant  health 
measures) and in Articles 30 and 31 of Chapter III (respectively, European Union Reference 
laboratories and training activities) of the Regulation achieve the objectives set out in Article 
2(1), as regards the efficiency of the use of resources and its added value, at Union level. The 
Report  shall  address  the  scope  for  simplification,  the  continued  relevance  of  all  objectives, 
and the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth.  It  shall  also  take  into  account  results  on  the  long-term  impact  of  the  predecessor 
measures. 

The  present  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  summarises  the  outcome  of  the  mid-term 
evaluation  based  on  the  results  of  a  study  conducted  by  an  external  contractor  and  on  an 
internal assessment performed by the Commission. The mid-term evaluation fully covers the 
implementation of the above-referred measures for 2014, 2015 and partially 2016, dependant 
on preliminary data available. It also takes into account results on the long-term impact of the 
predecessor  measures.  It  provides  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  overview  of  the  measures 
implemented under the CFF Regulation, and assesses them against the five evaluation criteria 
set  by  the  Better  Regulation1  policies  in  the  European  Commission:  relevance,  European 
added value, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

The assessment of the sectorial policies under which the financed measures fall are not in the 
scope of this evaluation.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

2.1.  The CFF Regulation 

In  line  with  the  Communication  'A  Budget  for  Europe  2020'2,  the  CFF  Regulation  was 
envisaged in order to improve the functioning of the activities implemented within this area, 
as well as to focus on EU funding priorities providing real added value. In this view, it aimed 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/better-regulation-why-and-how_en 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM-2011-500_Part_I_en.pdf 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
at modernising and rationalising the pre-existing financial provisions, providing a simplified 
financial framework covering the whole food safety area. 

Most of the spending measures covered by the CFF Regulation used to receive EU financial 
support under the previous legislation, notably: 

- 

- 

- 

in  the  veterinary  area:  eradication,  control  and  surveillance  programmes  (hereinafter: 
"veterinary  programmes")  implemented  by  the  Member  States,  which  are  aimed  to 
progressively  eliminate  animal  diseases  and  zoonoses  and  to  implement  disease  control 
measures; and the veterinary emergency measures, which are aimed to timely cope with 
emergency situations related to animal health: before the entry into force of the CFF, those 
activities  were  covered  by  the  so-called  "veterinary  fund",  namely  Council  Decision 
2009/470/EC; 
in the phytosanitary area: emergency measures to timely cope with emergency situations 
related  to  plant  health,  while  preventing  further  spread  and  introduction  into  the  Union 
territory; prior to the CFF Regulation, they were co-financed under Directive 2000/29/EC; 
in  the  area  of  official  controls:  the  European  Union  Reference  Laboratories  (EURLs) 
activities,  which  are  aimed  to  ensure  high-quality,  uniform  testing  in  the  EU  and  to 
support the Commission activities on risk management and risk assessment in the area of 
laboratory analysis; and the Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) programme, which is a 
training  initiative  addressing  national  authority  staff  involved  in  official  controls  in  the 
areas of food and  feed law, animal health and welfare and plant health rules: before the 
CFF they received financial support under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. 

Since the entry into force of the CFF Regulation, all the spending activities listed above have 
their  financial  provisions  under  a  single  framework,  with  harmonised  procedures, 
standardised rates, clarified eligible costs and measures. From the operational point of view, 
they are being implemented in full continuity with the predecessor measures. 

The  CFF  Regulation  introduced  new  measures  in  the  phytosanitary  area,  namely  the 
possibility to co-finance the implementation of survey programmes  concerning the presence 
of pests in the Union territory. They consist of surveillance measures allowing preventing the 
introduction into the EU or the spread within the EU of harmful organism. 

2.2.  Objectives of the CFF Regulation 

The general policy objective of the CFF Regulation is to contribute to a high level of health 
for humans, animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas, by preventing and 
eradicating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high level of protection for consumers and 
the  environment,  while  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  Union  food  and  feed  industry 
and favouring the creation of jobs. 

This  general  objective  is  crystallised  into  four  specific  objectives,  one  for  each  of  the  four 
spending  areas  covered  by  the  regulation  itself,  namely:  food  safety,  animal  health  and 
welfare, plant health, official controls.  

3 

 
 
 
The specific objectives are accompanied by a number of specific indicators, also set out in the 
CFF Regulation itself, which provides a preliminary basis to conduct a sectorial evaluation of 
the measures implemented under each of the four covered spending areas. 

Following  to  the  adoption  of  the  CFF  Regulation,  those  specific  indicators  were  further 
translated by the DG SANTE policy units concerned into 21 operational technical indicators 
(listed in Annex VI), which were used in the context of the present evaluation. 

The CFF general objective, specific objectives, and specific indicators are shown in the table 
below:  

Table 1. CFF objectives and indicators 

General objective 
To contribute to a high level of health for humans, animals and plants along the food chain 
and in related areas, by preventing and eradicating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high 
level of protection for consumers and the environment, while enhancing the competitiveness 
of the Union food and feed industry and favouring the creation of jobs 
Specific objectives 

Food safety: 
to contribute to a high 
level of safety of food 
and food production 
systems and of other 
products which may 
affect the safety of food, 
while improving the 
sustainability of food 
production 

Animal health and 
welfare: 
to contribute to 
achieving a higher 
animal health status 
for the Union and to 
support the 
improvement of the 
welfare of animals 

Plant health: 
to contribute to the 
timely detection of 
pests and their 
eradication where 
those pests have 
entered the Union 

Official controls 
and other 
activities: 
to contribute to 
improving the 
effectiveness, 
efficiency and 
reliability of 
official controls 
and other activities 
carried out with a 
view to the 
effective 
implementation of 
and compliance 
with the Union 
rules (referred to in 
Article 1) 

4 

 
 
 
 
A reduction in the 
number of cases of 
diseases in humans in 
the Union which are 
linked to food safety or 
zoonoses 

A favourable trend 
in the results of 
controls in 
particular areas of 
concern carried out 
and reported on by 
Commission 
experts in the 
Member States 

Specific indicators 

An increase in the 
number of Member 
States or their regions 
which are free from 
animal diseases in 
respect of which a 
financial contribution 
is granted 

An overall reduction 
of disease parameters 
such as incidence, 
prevalence and 
number of outbreaks 

The coverage of the 
Union territory by 
surveys for pests, in 
particular for pests 
not known to occur 
in the Union 
territory and pests 
considered to be 
most dangerous for 
the Union territory 

The time and 
success rate for the 
eradication of those 
pests 

To  achieve  the  objectives,  the  EU  funding  under  the  CFF  Regulation  addresses  problems 
related to three major categories of needs in this area, namely the demands for: 
 

increased protection, by preventing risks which might affect animals, plants or any step of 
the food chain; 

  proper  and  timely  reaction  in  case  of  crisis,  by  extinguishing  the  emergency  factor  or 

containing its spread; 

  healthier  animals  and  plants,  and  safer  food,  by  eliminating  diseases  and  pests  which 

affect the EU Member States. 

The implementation of the CFF activities is articulated in several levels of intervention, and 
the specific actions implemented vary depending on the degree of presence of the disease or 
pest concerned in the EU territory. 
If a disease or a pest is not present in the EU or in a Member State, but there is a risk that it 
could  enter  its  territory,  a  number  prevention  measures  are  put  in  place  to  avoid  its 
introduction. Particularly, these measures concern the so-called "trans-boundary" diseases or 
pests,  which  are  able  to  spread  and  transmit  regardless  of  any  geographical  barrier.  They 
mainly  consist  in  the  funding  of  monitoring  activities  to  be  conducted  in  a  buffer  zone  in 
neighbouring  third  countries  or  regions.  In  addition,  for  some  strategic  animal  diseases,  a 
vaccine stock ("vaccine bank") is also established at EU level, to be immediately used in case 
of emergency situations. 
If a certain disease or pest is more likely to enter or has already entered the EU or a Member 
State, surveillance activities are put in place to, respectively, timely detect its introduction or 
assess  its  epidemiological  evolution  since  the  initial  stages.  The  early  detection  is  of 
fundamental  importance  especially  in  the  case  of  certain  animal  diseases  and  plant  which, 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
once entered, may have a potential devastating effect on animal and crop production and on 
public health.  
In case an outbreak occurs, early reaction measures are immediately implemented to prevent 
the spread of the disease or the pest, and to extinguish the outbreak in a short time, in order to 
minimize  the  impact  on,  for  instance,  plant  and  animal  production  and  trade.  These 
emergency interventions include felling of infected trees and phytosanitary treatments, culling 
of  infected  animals  or,  when  possible,  emergency  vaccination,  accompanied  by  movement 
restrictions. 
When  an  animal  disease  or  a  plant  pest  is  endemic  or  detected  in  the  Union  territory,  a 
number  of  cure  activities  are  put  in  place  to  progressively  eliminate  it  from  the  concerned 
area  and  prevent  its  further  spread.  Particularly,  they  consist  in  medium-  or  long-term 
eradication  programmes  implemented  by  the  Member  States,  with  a  consequent  positive 
impact  for  the  Union  as  whole  in  terms  of  on  public  health,  animal  or  plant  productions, 
internal market and trade.  

The comprehensive set of measures described above, implemented by the Member States, is 
complemented by the funding of additional activities aimed to enhance the safety of EU food 
products in the interest of all European citizens. Particularly, financial support is given for the 
EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs), which ensures high-quality and uniform testing in the 
EU,  and  provides  trainings  to  hundreds  of  National  Reference  Laboratories  (NRL)  in  a 
number of food safety priority areas. Another main element of the EU co-financing for food 
safety  is  the  initiative  "Better  Training  for  Safer  Food",  aimed  at  training  every  year  some 
7000 officials of national competent authorities involved in official controls. 

3. 

METHOD 

The  basis  for  the  evaluation  was  set  up  in  the  evaluation  roadmap3.  The  evaluation  was 
supported by an Interservice Steering Group, which oversaw the whole evaluation exercise. 

The evaluation focuses on the first three years of implementation of the CFF Regulation, fully 
assessing 2014 and 2015 and only partially 2016, based on preliminary data available. 

As requested by Article 42 of the CFF Regulation, the following domains were addressed: 

  Animal health: 

o  Emergency measures. 
o  Programmes  for  eradication,  control  and  surveillance  of  animal  diseases  and 

zoonosis (hereinafter: veterinary programmes), where: 

  Eradication programmes aim to result in biological extinction of an animal 
disease or zoonosis. The final target of an eradication programme shall be 
to obtain the free or officially free-status of the territory according to Union 
legislation, where such possibility exists.  

  Control programmes aim to obtain or maintain the prevalence of an animal 

disease or zoonosis below a sanitary acceptable level.  

3 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
  Surveillance  programmes  refer  to  activities  to  collect  and  record  data  on 
specific diseases in defined populations over a period of time, in order to 
assess the epidemiological evolution of the diseases and the ability to take 
targeted measures for control and eradication. 

  Plant health: 

o  Emergency measures. 
o  Survey programmes concerning presence of pests. 

  Official controls and other activities: 

o  European Union Reference laboratories. 
o  Training (Better training for Safer Food Initiative). 

The  above-listed  spending  measures  were  firstly  assessed  using  the  set  of  21  operational 
technical indicators previously developed and monitored at level, which were shared with the 
contractor  at  the  very  initial  stages  of  the  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation.  The 
qualitative  and  quantitative  description  of  those  measures  was  complemented  with  the 
gathering of data, which was undertaken in a stepwise approach using the following sources: 

 

  Data sources of the Commission: 
financial  data  (e.g.  budget 
technical  data  (e.g.  operational 
indicators);  annual  financial  and  technical  reports  covering  animal  and  plant  health, 
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF. 
indicators on e.g. trade, animal population; 

implementation), 

 

  Literature review: studies, evaluations, conducted either independently or on behalf of the 

Commission on CFF-related topics; 
  Stakeholder consultation, consisting of: 

▪  Open  public  consultation:  questionnaire  published  in  English  during  12  weeks  on  the 
European Commission ‘Public consultations’ website that received 5 responses 
▪ Targeted stakeholder consultation with specific questionnaires for: 

o  Competent  authorities,  stakeholders  linked  to  the  industry  (including  farmers' 
organisations,  veterinary  organisations),  EU  and  national  associations, 
international organisations and NGOs. 

o  EU Reference Laboratories 
o  Better Training for Safer Food initiative 
In-depth  stakeholder 

the  European 
▪ 
interviews:  addressing 
Commission,  and  other  selected  stakeholders 
industry 
representatives, NGOs) in a number of Member States. 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 
and check information retrieved from other sources for triangulation. 

representatives  of 
(Competent  authorities, 

  Case studies: covering a significant selection of animal diseases and plant pests; based on 
the assessment of the results from the desk study and questionnaires, several stakeholders 
were identified to be interviewed for the case studies. 

All  relevant  stakeholders  group  were  reached  by  the  consultation  procedure,  and  most 
individual stakeholder contacted cooperated in the exercise. 

7 

 
 
The final report of the external study supporting the evaluation provides an overview of the 
measures implemented over the three-year period 2014-2016. There are however a number of 
issues  to  consider  when  assessing  the  strengths  of  the  evidence  base  used  for  this  study, 
specifically linked to the limited time available to undertake the evaluation: 

  The  mid-term  evaluation  exercise  started  in  the  second  half  of  2016,  where  complete 
technical and financial data were only available for the first two years of implementation 
of the CFF Regulation. 

  A number of transitory measures applied during both 2014 and 2015, while the provisions 

laid down in the CFF Regulation are fully applicable only from 2016. 

  The  mid-term  evaluation  has  considered  the  long-term  impact  of  predecessor  measures 
except  in  the  phytosanitary  area,  notably  for  the  survey  programmes  which  were  firstly 
implemented in the framework of the CFF Regulation. 

Moreover, no cost-effectiveness analysis has been developed so far in the CFF area. Whilst a 
methodological  approach  to  conduct  this  kind  of  economic  analysis  was  expected  to  be 
delivered  in  the  context  of  the  external  study,  the  task  was  not  investigated  as  requested.  
Therefore, a significant instrument to perform the evaluation is missing. These shortcomings 
have objectively limited the external analysis, which is mostly descriptive and largely based 
on  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  and  on  the  perceptions  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  CFF 
financial support. It does not include an in-depth investigation of the causal effects behind the 
results  and  impacts  achieved  by  the  implementation  of  the  CFF  Regulation.  The  overall 
evaluation exercise is nevertheless complemented by the internal assessment conducted at EU 
level,  which  largely  relies  on  the  continuous  analysis  performed  at  policy,  technical  and 
financial  level  by  the  Commission  services,  including  the  constant  dialogue  with  all  CFF 
beneficiaries  for  both  scientific  and  budgetary  aspects.  The  monitoring  of  the  operational 
technical  indicators'  values  was  particularly  useful  in  the  context  of  this  evaluation:  even  if 
they  do  not  provide  cost-effectiveness  results,  those  indicators  allow  evaluating  the 
achievements  and/or  the  performance  of  the  major  activities  implemented  thanks  to  the  EU 
funding in the areas covered by the CFF. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY  

The CFF has a maximum total ceiling for expenditure of EUR 1 891 936 0004 over the seven-
year period 2014–2020. Table 2 below shows the amounts committed during the period under 
evaluation,  which  were  substantially  in  line  with  the  forecasted  budget.  For  the  concerned 
years, it was sufficient to cover the different needs, thanks to the good results achieved in the 
four  spending  areas;  the  positive  trend  mainly  concerned  the  animal  health  field,  especially 
eradication  programmes,  where  the  successful  implementation  of  long-term  measures  led to 
the progressive reduction of the related spending, and veterinary emergency measures, whose 
ad hoc system of early detection and intervention allowed to timely extinguish or contain the 
outbreaks occurred in the period under evaluation, therefore limiting the associated costs. 

4 In current prices 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
Table 2. Commitments for 2014, 2015 and 2016 CFF activities  

2014 

2015 

2016 

Veterinary programmes and vaccines 

172.356.231 

164.017.000 

161.553.100 

Plant health survey programmes 

205.500 

7.585.000 

11.375.400 

Animal health and plant health emergency measures 

12.662.896 

16.111.611 

27.376.398 

EURLs 

BTSF 

Total  

15.001.000 

15.500.000 

16.000.000 

14.885.000 

14.685.000 

15.365.000 

215.110.627 

217.898.611 

231.669.898 

Forecast budget (in million euro) 

253,4 

258,5 

261,0 

The  main  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  EU  financial  contribution  made  under  the  CFF  are  the 
competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States,  which  receive  a  compensation  for  the  eligible 
costs incurred to carry out the eligible measures. Both the eligible measures and the eligible 
costs are listed in the CFF Regulation. 

The  Union  financial  contribution  mostly  takes  the  form  of  grants  (the  only  exception  being 
the  voluntary  payments  to  international  organizations),  with  a  basic  reimbursement  of  no 
more  than  50%  of  the  eligible  costs;  under  specific  conditions,  the  applicable  rate  can  be 
increased to 75% or 100%. 

4.1.  Animal health 
The CFF  Regulation contribution for animal health  covers the implementation of veterinary 
programmes, which are aimed to implement eradication, control or surveillance activities for 
animal  diseases  and  zoonoses,  and  of  veterinary  emergency  measures,  carried  out  to  timely 
intervene in the occurrence of outbreaks or epidemics affecting animals. The diseases eligible 
for  EU  financial  contribution  under  veterinary  emergency  measures  and  programmes  are 
listed,  respectively,  in  Annex  I  and  in  Annex  II  to  the  CFF  Regulation.  The  eligible  costs 
(including, for example, the costs of animals slaughtering/culling  and the vaccination costs) 
are also listed in specific articles of the Regulation. Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists the 
priorities  for  Union  financial  support  as  regards  the  orientation  of  veterinary  programmes: 
based  on  these  priorities  for  funding,  and  on  the  annual  evaluation  of  the  epidemiological 
situation and of the most immediate risks identified, 10 out of the 25 diseases listed in Annex 
II to the CFF Regulation have been identified as priority diseases for the period 2014-20165. 
Payments for veterinary programmes alone make up almost three quarters of the expenditure 
under  the  EU  food  chain  budget.  For  the  2014  and  2015  programmes,  it  amounted  to, 
respectively, EUR 136.22 and EUR 147.90 million. 

5 African swine fever; avian influenza in poultry and wild birds; classical swine fever; rabies; bovine brucellosis; 
ovine  and  caprine  brucellosis;  transmissible  spongiform  encephalopathies;  zoonotic  Salmonella;  bovine 
tuberculosis; bluetongue in endemic or high risk areas. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Over  the  period  considered,  the  programmes  addressing  five  diseases,  namely  bovine 
tuberculosis,  TSE/BSE/scrapie,  rabies  eradication,  salmonella,  and  ovine  &  caprine 
brucellosis, represented between 84% and 90 % of the payments for veterinary programmes. 

The  MSs  with  the  highest  co-funding  of  animal  health  programmes  are  UK,  Spain,  Italy, 
Ireland  and  Poland.  The  amounts  strongly  depend  on  the  type  of  disease  addressed,  on  the 
specific  measures  co-financed  and  on  the  epidemiological  situation  in  the  Member  States 
concerned.   

If  the  total  spending  for  veterinary  programmes  is  consistent,  payments  for  animal  health 
emergency measures are volatile, depending on the changes in the epidemiological situation 
over  the  years.  For  the  measures  implemented  in  2014  and  2015,  they  amounted  to, 
respectively, EUR 7.67 and EUR 11.76 million. 

During the period considered, about 50% of the budget has gone to emergency payments for 
avian influenza, followed by African swine fever (17%) and bluetongue surveillance (14%). 

4.2. 

Plant health 

The  CFF  Regulation  contribution  for  plant  health  covers  the  implementation  of  survey 
programmes,  which  are  aimed  to  support  early  detection  of  pests  in  the  EU  territory,  and 
implement phytosanitary emergency measures in case of outbreaks. 

The list of pests eligible for EU co-financing under the survey programmes includes hundreds 
of harmful organisms, which are subject to an annual prioritisation. This list is not integrated 
in  the  CFF  Regulation,  but  laid  down  in  the  specific  plant  health  legislation.  Survey 
programme were first established and co-financed in 2015, with 17 EU countries presenting a 
programme in 2015 and 22 in 2016. Payments for 2015 survey amounted to EUR 4.2 million, 
(payment for 2016 will be finalised by end of 2017).  

The implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures are instead developed for a limited 
number  of  pests  which  deserve  a  more  targeted  control  strategy  in  order  to  prevent  further 
spread  and  introduction  into  the  rest  of  the  Union  territory.  Among  other  pests,  emergency 
measures  have  been  developed so far for  Xylella fastidiosa, Bursaphelenchus  xylophilus (so 
called:"Pinewood  nematode")    Anoplophora  chinensis  and  Anoplophora  glabripennis, 
Pomacea, Epitrix spp., whose further spread into the Union territory can cause unacceptable 
social, environmental and economic consequences. The objective of eradication of plant pests 
remains a complex objective to achieve due to lack of effective treatment solutions, the high 
number  of  susceptible  plant  species,  population  dynamics  and  lifecycle  of  pests  and  their 
vectors present in forests, parks and plantations with high economic, social and environmental 
value. Very few experience has proven that eradication is possible only if decisive measures 
are  put  immediately  in  place.  This  was  the  case  in  two  out  of  four  outbreaks  of  Pinewood 
nematode  in  Spain,  two  outbreaks  of  Anoplophora  chinensis  in  Denmark  and  in  The 
Netherlands  and  two  outbreaks  of  Anoplophora  glabripennis  in  Germany  and  in  The 
Netherlands. However, when the pest is considered to be established in a certain territory and 
eradication is no longer feasible, containment measures may still provide sufficient guarantees 

10 

 
 
 
to prevent further spread of the pests in the Union territory. In this respect, for example, the 
EU financial support has allowed to successfully containing Pinewood nematode in Portugal 
since  1999,  minimising  the  risk  of  further  spread  to  neighbouring  Member  States,  while 
preserving the functioning of the internal market. Similarly to the animal health area, although 
very  limited  in  scale,  the  amount  paid  in  plant  health  for  emergency  measures  varies 
substantially  between  years.  For  the  measures  implemented  in  2014  and  2015,  payments 
amounted to EUR 7.2 and EUR 0.9 million, respectively. In the period considered, as far as 
emergency  measures  are  concerned,  three  pests  alone,  namely  Bursaphelenchus  xylophilus, 
Anoplophora glabripennis and Pomacea insularum, were responsible for almost all payments 
(91%) for plant health emergency measures. 

4.3.  Official controls 

The  main  spending  measures  carried  out  under  the  official  controls  area  consist  of  the 
activities  performed  by  the  EU  Reference  laboratories,  the  implementation  of  the  BTSF 
programme. 

EU  Reference  Laboratories  (EURLs)  activities  are  financed  at  100%  by  the  EU  food  chain 
budget,  and are aimed to ensure high-quality  and uniform testing in  the EU, and to  provide 
trainings to hundreds of National Reference Laboratories (NRL) in a number of food safety 
priority  areas.  This  ensures  that  the  regulatory  framework  is  applied  in  a  consistent  way  as 
regards  laboratory  analysis  and  compliance  testing  used  in  the  context  of  official  control.. 
Annual  payments  for  EURLs  have  been  increasing  over  the  last  years,  from  EUR  14,01 
million for 2014 activities to EUR 14,46 million for 2015 and EUR 16 million for 20166. 

The  "Better  Training  for  Safer  Food"  initiative  is  also  financed  at  100%  by  the  EU  budget, 
and consists of a training programme aimed to prepare national staff from both EU Member 
States  and  third  countries  in  all  areas  covered  by  the  CFF  Regulation.  The  BTSF  training 
programme  has covered, for the three years considered, 52 topics of key importance for the 
CFF  areas,  such  as:  foodborne  outbreak  investigations,  African  swine  fever  outbreaks 
management.  This  initiative  has  trained  every  year  some  7000  officials  of  competent 
authorities  involved  in  official  controls,  promoting  a  common  approach  towards  the 
implementation of EU legislation. Annual expenditure for BTSF activities amounted to EUR 
15 million for 2014 trainings and to EUR 14,5 million for 2015 trainings.  

5. 

ANSWERS TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The mid-term evaluation assessed the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU 
added value of the CFF Regulation, answering to the twelve evaluation questions addressed in 
respect to these five evaluation criteria.  

6 Provisional data 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.1.  Relevance 

To measure the relevance, questions were  asked about the extent to which the objectives of 
the CFF Regulation are still valid and in accordance with food chain needs in Europe, and on 
whether new relevant needs have emerged since the adoption of the Regulation itself. 

EQ1.  To what extent are the CFF objectives still valid and in accordance with food chain 
needs in the EU?’  

The specific objectives set out in the CFF Regulation are mostly valid, and the EU financial 
supports towards their achievement continue providing a response to the specific EU needs in 
this field. 

In  the  animal  health  area,  the  contribution  to  a  higher  animal  health  status  remains  the 
overarching  goal,  which  is  being  attained  through  the  implementation  of  both  emergency 
measures  and  veterinary  programmes.  Outbreaks  of  diseases  having  a  high  potential  impact 
on human and animal health, as well as from the economic and social points of view, occur 
every year. As the number of outbreaks and their impact vary substantially between years, it is 
necessary  to  keep  emergency  funding  at  EU  level,  with  financial  resources  specifically  and 
immediately available to address crisis events, to ensure a rapid and comprehensive response 
in  those  cases.  The  CFF  has  also  the  facility  to  take  action  against  new  emerging  diseases 
(such  as  LSD),  therefore  adapting  to  new  needs.  Veterinary  programmes  also  remain  a 
funding  priority  for  the  achievement  of  the  relevant  CFF  objectives,  especially  eradication 
activities,  in  the  light  of  the  long-term  impact  of  their  implementation.  Those  programmes 
proved to be successful in most cases, and many of them, such as the programme addressing 
rabies, can be wound down in the near future due to complete eradication.   

As concerns plant health, the objective of the timely detection of pests and their eradication 
once they have entered the Union remains the key priority for the Union. However, very few 
experience has proved that eradication of plant pests is achievable  and only in case  effective 
measures  are  implemented  at  the  very  earliest  stages  of  the  outbreak  (Eradication  has  been 
successful only in few cases: two out of four outbreaks of Pinewood nematode in Spain; two 
outbreaks  of  Anoplophora  chinensis  in  Denmark  and  in  The  Netherlands;  two  outbreaks  of 
Anoplophora glabripennis in Germany and in The Netherlands. Vice-versa,  Member States 
have been able to successfully contain or minimise the risk of further the spread of some pests 
into the rest of the Union territory (e.g. Pomacea in Spain, Pinewood nematode in Portugal). 
The  contribution  to  the  timely  detection  and  to  the  implementation  of  strict  emergency 
measures through EU funding is increasingly relevant, particularly when those activities are 
combined with surveillance programmes to check the presence of harmful organisms. 

The  complementary  activities  carried  out  by  the  EURLs  and  in  the  context  of  the  BTSF 
programme  have  been  contributing  to  the  effective  implementation  of  and  compliance  with 
the  Union  rules  in  this  area7.  In  fact,  such  activities  -  from  the  tests  carried  out  by  the 
laboratories  to  the  trainings  addressing  national  officials  -  have  supported  a  uniform 

7 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pages 92-93 

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
implementation  of  controls  throughout  the  EU  and  to  a  common  understanding  across 
Member  States  of  their  obligations  and  how  to  best  enforce  relevant  EU  legislation.8  Their 
importance remains strategic within the overall food chain system, where a major objective is 
still the improvement of the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of official controls. 

The  validity  of  the  horizontal  food  safety  objective  is  to  be  framed  within  the  overall 
implementation  of  the  CFF  Regulation,  considering  that  its  achievement  results  from  the 
combination of all sectorial measures financially supported by the CFF. Animal health, plant 
health, and official control activities all contribute to having a high level of safety of food and 
of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens. The safety of food requires safe 
and healthy animals, plants and a high-standard system of controls. The European agricultural 
productions  are  globally  appreciated  for  their  quality  as  well  as  for  their  high-level  safety 
standards, making the EU agri-food industry the largest manufacturing sector in Europe and a 
leading player worldwide. In this context, the EU food safety budget plays an important role 
in supporting the specific measures contributing to achieve this objective9. 

EQ2.  Are the needs identified at the time of the adoption of the CFF still relevant or have 
new needs emerged which necessitate an adjustment of the Regulation?’  
The  general  food  chain  needs  identified  at  the  start  of  the  CFF  are  still  relevant,  as  they 
mainly  consist  of  either  long-term  or  permanent  issues  which  have  been  successfully 
addressed thanks to the EU financial contribution. 
 Being situated under the Commission's priority on security and citizenship, the CFF has to be 
seen  within  the  context  of  protection  of  the  EU's  productions,  its  industry,  as  well  as  each 
single  citizen.  This  need  translates  into  the  food  safety  policy,  which  is  primarily  aimed  at 
protecting  human,  animal  and  plant  health  in  the  EU.  Protection  is  a  solid  concept  in  this 
policy area: the principle "prevention is better than cure" has been the leading thread since the 
launch  of  the  EU  animal  health  strategy  (AHS),  ten  years  ago,  then  embraced  in  the  plant 
health  area  too.  The  strengthening  of  the  protective  approach  is  closely  related  to  the 
continuous enhancement of the crisis preparedness system, which has been a pillar of the EU 
food safety system for a long time. It consists of a number of measures put in place in view of 
either  avoiding  or  minimising  the  sanitary  and  economic  impact  of  possible  future  crises, 
depending on the severity of the situation. The early detection is of fundamental importance 
especially  in  the  case  of  certain  animal  diseases  and  plant  pests  which,  once  entered,  may 
have a potential devastating effect on animal and crop/forests production and on public health. 
Thanks to early detection and to immediate application of EU co-funded emergency measures 
the  EU  has  experienced  no  large-scale  food  safety  crises  for  almost  ten  years,  and  all 
outbreaks have been successfully contained. Three year after the entry into force of the CFF 
Regulation,  all  the  above  mentioned  needs  remain  fully  relevant,  and  the  EU  financial 
intervention to ensure they are adequately covered has to be confirmed, in the interest of all 
European citizens.  

8 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 113 
9 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 96 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
Still, thematic priorities are discussed every year and adjusted to the epidemiological situation 
which  is  actually  prevailing  in  the  context  of  the  annually  approved  Commission  work 
programmes:  aspects  such  as  the  impact  on  human  health,  and  the  potential  to  generate 
serious  economic  consequences  are  taken  into  consideration.    In  this  respect,  the  CFF  has 
shown the flexibility to integrate these needs into the current arrangements, with no need to 
make  adjustment  in  the  general  provisions  laid  down  in  the  legal  basis.  Besides  the 
prioritization of animal diseases and plant pests, new specific needs have emerged during the 
very  last  years,  particularly  related  to  the  occurrence  of  new  diseases  or  pests  or  to  their 
unexpected development. The evolution of diseases such as Peste des Petits Ruminants, LSD 
and  Sheep  Pox  diseases,  for  example,  which  were  previously  addresses  by  emergency 
measures only, has required a more structured support at EU level through the implementation 
of veterinary programmes; the specific list of eligible diseases was integrated accordingly in 
2016,  and  those  programmes  will  be  implemented  in  the  Member  States  concerned  from 
2018.  This new needs implied specific adjustments in the area of official controls too, where 
additional  EURLs  were  created  in  2016  for  each  of  the  three  animal  diseases  mentioned 
above.  The  BTSF  initiative  has  also  proven  flexibility  to  respond  to  new  needs,  notably 
during  crisis  events,  when  it  has  contributed  to  both  prevention  and  crises-preparedness.  A 
concrete example is the BTSF training organised in response to the African Swine Fever or to 
the  plant  bacterium  Xylella  fastidiosa  emergency,  as  well  as  the  training  on  foodborne 
outbreak investigations, which was organised during the three years considered and focused 
on subjects such as outbreak preparedness, outbreak management, and crisis communication, 
addressing  national  teams  of  public  health,  veterinary  and  phytosanitary  experts  and  food 
safety authorities. 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

Effectiveness  had  questions  on  the  extent  to  which  the  general  and  specific  CFF  objectives 
were achieved and on the impact of the CFF measures implemented. 

 “To  which  extent  have  the  specific  objectives  been  attained  by  the  CFF?  Which 

EQ5. 
factors influenced the results achieved?”  

The  implementation  of  veterinary  measures  represents  the  largest  part  of  the  expenditure 
under  the  CFF  budget,  with  the  veterinary  programmes  alone  exceeding  75%  of  the  total 
spending in the three years under evaluation. This budgetary relevance is also reflected in the 
fact that 12 out of the 21 technical indicators monitored in this context relate to this spending 
area.10 The chosen indicators focus on the priority animal diseases and zoonoses; they allow 
to  monitor  the  geographical  evolution  of  the  EU  areas  which  are  free  from  specific  animal 
diseases, and to  measure technical parameters such  as the prevalence, the incidence and  the 
number of cases. The analysis of these indicators for the period 2014-2016 reveals a positive 
epidemiological  trend  for  all  priority  diseases  receiving  EU  financial  support  under  the 
veterinary programmes, with a growing number of Member States or regions becoming free 

10 See Annex 4  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
from animal diseases, and an overall reduction in all monitored parameters. A good example 
is the increased number of Member States free from bovine brucellosis: at the end  of 2016, 
two  out  of  the  five  Member  States  having  a  EU  co-funded  programme  during  the  period 
considered,  became  free  of  this  diseases;  in  the  remaining  three  Member  States,  the  main 
performance  indicator,  monitoring  the  evolution  of  herd  prevalence,  has  decreased  by  25% 
over the same period, showing a very positive trend towards the complete eradication of the 
disease.  Among  the  most  remarkable  successes,  the  eradication  of  several  diseases  in  many 
Member  States,  as  in  the  case  of  Bovine  Spongiform  Encephalopathy  (BSE)  in  cattle,  a 
disease  transmissible  to  humans  from  the  consumption  of  contaminated  beef  products.  The 
long-term EU co-financed measures led to a drop in BSE cases from more than 2000 in 2001 
to only 2 cases in 2016.11 The EU response to the BSE crises restored consumer confidence: 
beef consumption had dropped by up to 40% in late 2000, forcing prices steeply downward 
and requiring huge expenditure on market support measures at EU level.12 Another significant 
example  is  represented  by  the  EU  programmes  addressing  Rabies:  this  disease  has  been 
almost  eradicated  in  the  EU  in  wildlife  (complete  eradication  is  expected  by  2020)  and  the 
number of cases has fallen from 80 in 2014 to only 18 in 201613, hugely reducing a significant 
risk  to  health  and  enabling  free  movement  of  cats  and  dogs  within  the  EU.  Considering  a 
period longer than the evaluation timeframe, another success as well as the reduction of cases 
of human salmonellosis, dropped by 10% from 2010 to 2015 (latest available data). However, 
it  should  be  noted  that  there  are  still  some  areas  where  the  situation  has  not  improved  as 
expected, such as the cases of bovine tuberculosis (in 1 Member State out of the 5 with a EU 
co-funded  programme)  and  ovine  and  caprine  brucellosis  (in  1  Member  State  and  in  a  few 
regions of another Member State out of 6 with EU co-funded programmes). 

The implementation of emergency measures in the occurrence of veterinary disease outbreaks 
also plays a key role in achieving a higher animal health status in the EU, as well as to protect 
the  EU  economy  from  a  serious  and  large-scale  veterinary  crisis.  Thanks  to  early  detection 
and  to  immediate  application  of  EU  co-funded  emergency  measures,  all  recent  epidemics 
have  been  successfully  contained,  and  major  economic  consequences  -  such  as  trade 
restrictions and the block of exports - have been avoided. A recent example is the fight against 
the epidemic of LSD. In 2016, this disease affected seven countries in the South East Europe, 
including  Greece,  Bulgaria  and  the  Balkan  region.  All  these  countries  resorted  to  mass 
vaccination  with  the  support  of  a  EU  LSD  vaccine  bank,  which  was  set  up  before  the 
occurrence of the disease in the Union territory to be immediately used in case of emergency. 
This vaccination campaign resulted in the successful containment of the spread of the disease: 
no further Member States were affected, and the disease has not reoccurred in the vaccinated 
area. 

While  the  EU  financial support  for the  implementation  of  plant  health  emergency  measures 
has been provided for many years, the funding of plant health surveys programmes is still at 
an initial phase. Even if the EU Members States have welcomed their introduction through the 

11 Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States 
12 http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/vetenfinf/bse/14Atkinson.html 
13 Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States 

15 

 
 
                                                            
CFF Regulation, their evaluation remains complicated due to the extremely limited timeframe 
available and the absence of predecessor measures. 

To follow up the presence of pests into the Union territory and the results obtained as effect of 
the  implementation  of  phytosanitary  emergency  measures,  the  Commission  monitors  the 
number of cases for a selection of priority pests, including some devastating plant bacterium 
such  as  the  Xylella  fastidiosa.  The  achievement  of  the  eradication  objective  is  more 
complicated than in the animal health area, as in most cases eradication of plant pests is not 
feasible, due to population dynamics and lifecycle of pests and their vectors present in forests, 
parks  and  plantations.  However,  in  cases  eradication  is  not  considered  a  feasible  option,  a 
containment approach  is still an effective approach in order to  prevent further spread of the 
pest into the rest of the Union territory. This is the case, instead, for the Pinewood Nematode, 
detected in 1999 in Portugal, where EU financial support is in place to finally contain, since 
2014, its further spread to neighbouring Member States.14 A similar situation concerns Xylella 
fastidiosa, which has affected the olives in a restricted part of an Italian region: in this case 
too,  the  implementation  of  a  number  of  protective  measures  has  led  to  the  successful 
containment of this pest in a specific part of Apulia region.15 
The EU financial support to the official controls system addresses two major instruments, and 
covers 100% of the eligible costs incurred: the testing activities carried out by the network of 
43 EURLs, and the trainings provided in a number of food safety priority areas by both the 
EURLs,  and  in  the  context  of  the  BTSF  initiative.  Four  operational  indicators  have  been 
developed  to  monitor  their  contribution  to  ensuring  the  effective  implementation  of  and  the 
compliance with the Union rules in the areas covered by the CFF. 
The EURLs have contributed, inter-alia, to the continuous update of diagnostic tools for the 
timely  identification  of  pathogens.  This  is  critical  to  uniform  implementation  of  controls 
throughout  the  EU  as  it  ensures  confidence  in  the  reliability  of  test  results  and  a  level 
competitive playing field. An average success rate of 85% by the participating laboratories in 
the  proficiency  tests  performed  by  the  EURLs  network  shows  the  successful  application  of 
testing  methods  of  reference  laboratories  throughout  the  EU.  Through  continuous  training, 
with an annual workshop organised by each EURL, National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) 
involved in the official controls system could upgrade their expertise. The average satisfaction 
rate of participants, as regards the training contents, was above 87%. 
The  BTSF  training  initiative  has  covered,  for  the  three  years  considered,  52  topics  of  key 
importance  for  the  CFF  areas.  The  programme  was  considered  to  be  satisfactory  by  the 
participants,  in  both  the  EU  Member  States  and  in  third  countries,  with  a  satisfaction  rate 
above  90%  for  all  years  considered.  Also  the  success  rate  of  the  tests  performed  by  the 
participants after the training is very high, at about 88%. The trainings have provided support 
to  a  common  understanding  across  Member  States  of  their  obligations  and  how  best  to 
enforce relevant EU legislation. The BTSF programme was considered the by Member State 
competent authorities to be helpful in responding to new needs, notably during crisis events, 

14 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012D0535-20170310 
15 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02015D0789-20160514 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/legislation/emergency_measures/xylella-
fastidiosa/latest-developments_en 

16 

 
 
                                                            
when it contributed to both prevention and crises-preparedness.16 A concrete example is the 
BTSF  training  on  foodborne  outbreak  investigations,  which  was  organised  during  all  three 
years  considered  and  focused  on  subjects  such  as  outbreak  preparedness,  outbreak 
management, and crisis communication, addressing national teams of public health, veterinary 
and  food  safety  authorities.17  A  particularly  appreciated  BTSF  training  on  plant  health  was 
also organised for the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa together with EU Member States and 
Mediterranean  non-EU  Member  States  with  the  aim  to  transfer  knowledge  on  prevention 
activities, early detection, management and control of outbreaks.    
The  achievement  of  the  food  safety  objective  needs  to  be  presented  from  an  integrated 
perspective, being a horizontal goal resulting from the combination of all measures described 
above.  Animal  health,  plant  health,  and  official  control  activities  all  contribute  to  having  a 
high level of safety of food and of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens. 
The  safety  of  food  requires  safe  and  healthy  animals,  plants  and  a  high-standard  system  of 
controls. There is therefore a direct and binding link with the achievement of a high level of 
animal health, plant health and official controls to meet this requirement. 

The  main  factors  influencing  the  overall  achievement  of  the  CFF  objectives  relates  to  both 
financial and technical aspects. Budget limitations in some Members States, especially those 
struggling with economic crisis or other constraints, may limit or delay the implementation of 
measures  necessary  to  contain  the  outbreak  of  a  disease.  Therefore,  the  EU  financial 
contribution  supports  the  EU  crisis-management  system  in  the  event  of  an  outbreak.  The 
Union  coordination  also  facilitates  the  process  of  prioritisation,  which  would  be  extremely 
difficult  to  address  at  individual  Member  States  level.  The  key  importance  of  the  EU 
governance in the veterinary area is confirmed by a performance audit conducted by the Court 
of Auditors18, whose report was published in April 2016. The Report also acknowledged the 
good  design  and  proper  implementation  of  animal  health  programmes  co-financed  at  EU 
level,  highlighting  that  both  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  performed  particularly 
well in this framework.  
A  third  major  factor,  which  also  complements  the  EU  coordination  in  the  CFF  area,  is  the 
continuous  and  strict  dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  from  the 
design  of  the  measures  to  their  actual  implementation.  This  cooperation  takes  place  in 
institutional fora, like the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed or ad hoc 
working  groups,  but  also  through  the  constant  informal  communication  between  the 
commission' services and the national competent authorities. 

A concrete example of the contribution of the three horizontal aspects mentioned above to the 
achievement of the CFF objectives is the EU crisis-preparedness and management system in 
the event of an outbreak. When a disease is suspected or confirmed, a number of prevention 
and  control  actions  are  immediately  put  in  place  under  to  address  the  emergency  measures, 
including  the  temporary  closing  of  borders  and  the  regionalisation  of  the  disease.  For  the 
covered diseases (namely Foot-and-Mouth disease (FMD), Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and 

16 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 76 
17 Better Training for safer Food Annual Reports 2014 and 2015 
18 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
LSD),  a  EU  vaccine  bank  is  also  available  and  accessible  to  all  Member  States,  with  an 
emergency  stock  of  vaccines  to  be  immediately  used  in  the  areas  affected  or  at  risk.  The 
functioning  of  such  intervention  system  requires  a  central  level  of  management  and 
coordination of activities between the Member States,  complemented by a strict cooperation 
of  those  member  States  with  the  European  Commission,  but  also  the  commitment  of 
significant financial resources that would not be possible without the EU budget support. 

EQ6.   What has  been  the impact  achieved by EU financial  support  in terms of  food safety, 
animal health, plant health and official controls? 

The  CFF  Regulation  has  provided  financial  support  to  the  measures  addressing  the 
achievement  of  the  specific  objectives  in  this  area,  namely  the  overall  improvement  of  the 
animal  and  plant  health  status  in  the  EU,  as  well  as  of  food  safety  and  public  health.  As 
illustrated  by  the  evolution  of  the  technical  aspects  monitored  through  the  operational 
indicators, as illustrated in the previous section, positive progress have been made in all areas 
covered by the CFF regulation, perfectly in line with the targets discussed by the Commission 
with the technical experts from the Member States19. The EU territory is today a safer place, 
where  the  prevention  and  protection  system  have  proven  to  work  properly  and  where  the 
safety and quality of food respect the highest international standards. The human cases due to 
zoonotic  diseases  have  been  progressively  reducing  over  the  years,  and  both  the  frequency 
and  the  severity  of  animal,  plant,  and  food  crises  have  decreased.  No  large  scale  outbreaks 
have  occurred  for  a  decade,  and  all  emergencies  have  been  successfully  contained  and  put 
under control. In the plant health areas, EU funded programmes on surveys have permitted the 
early detection of new pests on the Union territory, allowing to actively contain some pests to 
the original outbreak areas (e.g. Pinewood nematode in Portugal) while minimising the risk of 
further spread into the Union territory. 

EQ7.  To what extent has the setting of CFF thematic priorities for Union financial support 
contributed to the achievement of the specific objectives?”  

Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists a number of thematic priorities for the implementation 
of  veterinary  programmes  and  of  phytosanitary  survey  programmes.  Those  overarching 
priorities, including inter-alia the impact on human health and the potential to generate serious 
economic  consequences,  are  discussed  every  year  in  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  the 
Commission  work  programmes.  In  the  light  of  the  major  risks  identified  and  on  the 
epidemiological situation which is actually prevailing, priority animal diseases and plant pests 
are  identified  accordingly.  This  system  has  proven  to  be  flexible  enough  to  respond  to  the 
main challenges and the more immediate risks for the EU. The list of animal diseases eligible 
for EU financial support, for example, has been integrated in order to address the emergence 
of  new  epidemiological  needs  (as  in  the  cases  of  LSD)  and  the  allocation  of  the  available 
financial resources could be oriented towards the most significant priorities. The multi-annual 

19 See Annex 4 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Commission work programmes covering 2015 and 2016, identified 3 categories; Group 1, for 
example,  listed  the  diseases  having  an  impact  on  both  human  and  animal  health.  Priorities 
have been revised in the context of the recently adopted work programme for the period 2018-
2020, with 4 categories identified, and where Group 1 addresses the major impact on animal 
health  and  trade.  This  flexible  system  ensures  that  the  specific  objectives  laid  down  in  the 
CFF  Regulation  are  pursued  and  that  the  specific  measures  implemented  to  achieve  them 
comply with the more recent development and needs in this area. 

EQ8.  To  what  extent  has  the  implementation  of  measures  co-financed  under  the  CFF 
contributed  to  a  positive  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  to  the 
competitiveness of the agri-food industry at global level?  

According to the last EUROSTAT data, in 2015, the output of the whole agri-food industry in 
the  EU  is  estimated  at  more  than  EUR  410  billion,  representing  the  largest  manufacturing 
sector  in  Europe  and  a  leading  player  worldwide.  Overall,  this  sector  provides  some  44 
million jobs in the EU, of which 22 million people are employed in farms. 

The competitiveness of the European food productions depends on their reputation, with the 
EU  food  safety  budget  playing  a  crucial  role  in  contributing  to  the  safety  and  quality  of 
European  food  products.    All  issues  relating  to  food  and  to  food  production  are  actually  a 
concern for each single EU citizen: all Europeans expect to eat quality food, produced with 
the  highest  safety  standards  and  under  ethical  conditions.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  healthy 
food  comes  from  healthy  animals  and  plants.  All  European  consumers  therefore  expect  the 
EU to protect them and their interests by guaranteeing adequate interventions and controls all 
along the food chain. 

In 2015, the EU financial contribution for all the food safety measures has amounted to some 
EUR 250 million, notably 0,06 % of the output value of the food industry. The size of the EU 
food  safety  budget  is  therefore  limited  compared  to  the  scale  of  the  economic  sector 
concerned;  this  relatively  low  financial  support  for  food  safety  provided  under  the  CFF 
supported  the  EU  legal  food  and  feed  framework,  which  ensures  the  functioning  of  the 
internal  market  leading  to  a  positive  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU’s  agri-food 
industry at international level. 

5.3.  Efficiency 
The efficiency section included questions on the relationship between resources employed and 
results  achieved,  taking  into  account  the  financial  procedures  in  place,  as  well  as  their 
contribution to the simplification and rationalisation in the areas covered by the CFF. 

EQ9.  To what extent has the relationship between resources employed and results achieved 
been efficient? Could the same results have been achieved with fewer resources? 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
The improvement of the animal health status is accompanied by a progressive reduction of the 
financial  resources  needed  in  the  area,  that  in  the  specific  case  of  veterinary  programmes 
dropped by 11 million euro over the three-year period under evaluation.  

Less predictable is the spending for emergency measures, which varies from one year to the 
other  as  a  consequence  of  factors  difficult  to  anticipate  and  to  control,  including  climate 
change and the globalisation of vectors, as well as the cyclical reoccurrence of some endemic 
diseases.  

The already-mentioned special report from the Court of Auditors20, published in April 2016, 
considers  the  Commission’s  strategy  for  animal  diseases  to  be  sound  and  well-developed, 
including  a  good  framework  for  prioritising  budget  resources  on  priority  programmes. 
According  to  its  findings,  the  Member  States  performed  well  in  managing  the  resources 
provided at EU level to co-fund the CFF measures. 

The implementation of the survey programmes aims to detect the presence of priority pests in 
the EU territory. In this view, an increment of the financial resources is needed and expected 
over the next years, supporting the objective to increase the coverage of the Union territory by 
those surveys by 2020. 

As in the case of veterinary emergency measures, the spending for phytosanitary emergency 
measures is variable and less predictable. Over the years 2014-2016, it mostly concerned four 
major  pests  only:  the  emergency  measures  addressing  Pinewood  nematode  and  Xylella 
fastidiosa, together with Anoplophora glabripennis and Pomacea insularum, were responsible 
for almost all payments (91%). For these emergencies, the EU has provided financial support 
to early detect new outbreaks and to prevent their further spread into the Union territory. 

The EURLs' activities and the BTSF initiative are financed at 100% by the EU, and each have 
an  annual  cost  of  about  15  million  euro  for  the  food  safety  budget.  This  limited  cost  has 
nevertheless allowed the EURLs to perform high-level testing activities and to train annually 
hundreds  of  NRLs,  while  in  the  context  of  the  BTSF,  some  6000  officials  of  national 
competent  authorities  involved  in  official  controls  were  trained  every  year.  These  current 
funding  arrangements,  which  fully  cover  the  eligible  costs,  have  proven  to  be  a  correct 
approach in motivating the Member States to carry out EU tasks. 

For all these measures, Table 2 illustrates that the amounts committed during the period under 
evaluation were substantially in line with the forecasted budget.  The good results achieved in 
implementing  the  CFF  budget  show  that  the  forecast  budget  for  the  concerned  years  was 
appropriate to  cover the different needs.  Still, it is  very unlikely  that the same results could 
have been achieved with fewer financial resources, for three main aspects already presented in 
the previous sections. 

Firstly, for the long-term nature of many CFF measures, namely eradication activities, which 
represent  a  very  large  share  of  the  food  safety  budget:  considering  that  the  final  targets  are 
most of the time achieved after several years of implementation, the specific spending in these 
area needs to be confirmed during a long period of time without interruptions, both to ensure 

20 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf 

20 

 
 
                                                            
continuity  with  past  activities  and  to  avoid  jeopardising  mid-term  achievements.21  Over  the 
three years considered, a considerable part of the CFF budget was invested in those kind of 
activities,  for  example  for  veterinary  programmes  addressing  the  eradication  of  Bovine 
Tuberculosis, or the surveillance of Avian Influenza. 

Secondly, the continuous emergence of new challenges affecting the safety of food, as well as 
the  health  of  animal  and  plants,  requires  that  the  specific  budget  is  both  flexible  and  sound 
enough to guarantee that the changing needs in this area are addressed properly and timely.22  

Third aspect, the fact that food crises, as well as outbreaks from animal diseases or plant pests 
are  very  difficult  to  anticipate,  and  tend  to  cyclically  occur  or  re-occur  affecting  the  EU 
territory. Those emergency situations might require significant financial resources, as proved 
by the past crises of FMD and swine fevers23. 

EQ10.  Do  the  financial  procedures  in  place  ensure  a  swift  and  resource-saving  decision-
making  process  and  thus  a  quick  implementation  of  the  interventions?  If  there  are 
shortcomings what are the reasons for this?   

Overall,  there  are  no  major  limitations  and  shortcomings  for  an  efficient  resource-saving 
decision-making process and quick implementation, especially in emergency situations. When 
outbreaks  of  animal  diseases  or  plant  pests  occur,  the  requested  technical  measures  to 
eradicate  or  to  contain  them  are  implemented  immediately,  concurrently  with  the  financial 
procedure,  which  do  not  interfere  with  an  efficient  decision  making  progress.  Financial 
commitments are made quickly and also payments to the Member State are timely.24 

EURLs can adapt quickly to urgent needs25, for example to provide technical assistance and 
diagnostic  tools  or  vaccines.  Representative  from  the  ASF  EURL  provided  urgent  technical 
assistance  to  the  Member  States  affected  by  the  first  outbreaks  of  ASF  in  2014,  in  the 
framework of the Community Veterinary Emergency Team (CVET) tasks. Besides, the ASF 
EURL provided diagnostic tools  to the neighbouring countries,  to  support them in  the early 
detection of the disease. 

In  relation  to  BTSF  programmes,26  quick  adjustment  of  training  subjects  once  awarded  is 
quite  difficult.    However,  the  possibility  to  introduce  additional  training  has  been  used,  for 
example in the case of ASF when this became an urgent threat 2015-2016. 

EQ11. To what extent has the entry into force of the CFF, which merges all measures in one 
single  regulation,  contributed  to  the  simplification  and  rationalisation  of  the  Union  co-
financing in the food chain area? 

21 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 15 
22 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pages 12-13, 21, 
56, 63-68, 82, 148 
23 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 59 
24 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 117 
25 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 127 
26 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 127 

21 

 
 
 
                                                            
The entry into force of the CFF Regulation provided with a modernised financial framework 
in  the  food  chain  area,  introducing  a  number  of  adjustments  aimed  at  simplifying  and 
rationalising the pre-existing legislation. Particularly, the CFF Regulation: 

  adapted the food safety expenditure to the structure of the EU budget 2014-2020, where 
its  budget  lines  are  not  part  of  the  AGRI  budget  any  longer,  but  belong  to  Heading  III 
"Security and citizenship"; 

  simplified the previous legal framework, over-complex and often out-of-date, by replacing 

it with a single piece of legislation covering the whole food and feed area; 

  aligned  the  financial  tools  used  in  these  spending  area  to  the  new  Financial  Regulation, 

especially by introducing some adjustments concerning Title VI, on grants; 

  harmonised the procedures in the phytosanitary and veterinary fields; 
  standardised  the  funding  rates,  providing  only  three  reimbursement  rates  (50%,  75%, 
100%) applicable under specific conditions, instead of the manifold and unclear funding 
rated used for predecessor measures; 

  clearly listed measures and costs eligible for EU co-financing; 
 

introduced  a  more  transparent  division  of  responsibilities  between  the  Commission  and 
the Member States; 
in its Annex III, lays down priorities for veterinary and phytosanitary programmes, to be 
adjusted annually or multi-annually. 

 

The implementation of unit costs and ceilings in veterinary programmes is also an example of 
simplification  and  rationalisation  of  the  system.  It  contributes  to  a  lower  administrative 
burden  for  the  Commission  as  well  as  for  the  Member  States,  facilitating  the  requests  for 
funding  and  for  reimbursements.  It  currently  covers  about  50%  of  the  eligible  costs  and  a 
further  revision  of  the  system  is  ongoing,  in  view  of  extending  it  to  other  CFF  spending 
measures. 

Current  reporting  requirements  were  in  some  cases  considered  disproportionate  by  some 
Member  States,  namely  for  smallest  veterinary  programmes  and  emergency  measures. 
However, the principles of transparency and accountability require that a proper justification 
is given for the way public money is spent, even if the size of the budget concerned is limited. 
Therefore, some administrative constrains for managing financial files cannot be avoided, in 
the interest of all EU citizens. 

5.4.  Coherence  
Coherence was about the consistency of the EU spending for food and feed measures with the 
political priorities in the food safety area. 

EQ12.  To what extent was the EU spending for food and feed measures consistent with the 
political priorities in the food safety area?  

The  food  safety  political  priorities  are  scattered  across  the  sectorial  legislation  in  each  area 
covered by the CFF Regulation, and then confirmed in the CFF itself. In this context, the CFF 
Regulation acts as a very technical piece of legislation, where eligible measures and costs for 
each  spending  area  are  formally  listed  in  specific  sections.  This  bounds  the  possibility  to 

22 

 
 
provide financial support to a range of measures which is quite substantial, but nevertheless 
clear and limited. Those measures are conceived to explicitly address the political priorities in 
the  areas  covered  by  the  CFF,  mostly  as  a  result  of  the  long-term  experience  of  the  EU 
spending  in  the  food  safety  area.  In  addition,  the  CFF  offers  the  possibility  for  providing 
financial support to additional non-listed measures, in exceptional and duly justified cases. To 
date,  no  request  in  this  sense  has  come  from  any  Member  State,  as  a  confirmation  of  a 
spending system which has proved to be fully consistent with the overall political priorities in 
this  domain  and  to  properly  respond  to  the  overarching  food  safety  needs  at  both  EU  and 
national level. 

The absence of any pressure and not even any proposal towards the co-financing of additional 
measures  also  confirms  the  functioning  of  the complementarity  of  the CFF  Regulation  with 
other  related  EU  programmes,  with  no  extra  needs  remaining  unaddressed  by  the  EU 
intervention.  An  example  of  synergy  between  programmes  covering  complementary  areas 
regards the primary agriculture, and more specifically the interaction between the provision of 
the  CFF  Regulation  and  CAP  Regulation  in  the  event  of  an  outbreak.  While  the  CFF 
addresses  eligible  direct  costs  incurred  to  tackle  animal  diseases  and  plant  pest,  such  as  the 
compensation  to  owners,  the  costs  of  vaccination,  and  the  slaughtering  of  animals  or  the 
culling of trees,  the CAP has provisions to contribute to covering some indirect costs, such as 
market losses suffered by farmers.  

5.5.  EU added value 
In order to assess whether the EU financial support for food and feed measures added specific 
value  compared  to  what  would  have  resulted  from  Member  States'  intervention  only,  a 
comparative analysis was conducted. 

EQ3.  To  which  extent  has  the  EU  financial  support  for  food  and  feed  measures  added 
specific value to what would have resulted from Member State‘s intervention only?  

The  achievement  of  a  higher  animal  health  status  was  possible  thanks  to  both  the  technical 
and financial support provided by the EU to the Member States. On the one hand, budgets of 
Members  States  alone,  especially  of  those  struggling  with  economic  crisis  or  other 
constraints,  have  difficulties  to  secure  appropriate  financial  resources  to  respond  to  the 
combination of present and potential challenges. On the other hand, the variety of measures to 
put  in  place to  tackle  animal diseases requires a centralised  management system in  order  to 
properly coordinate and organise the implementation of specific actions in the Member States. 
The EU crisis-management system in the event of an outbreak is an excellent example of the 
added  value  provided  by  the  EU  co-financing  in  this  area.  When  a  disease  is  suspected  or 
confirmed, a number of prevention and control actions are immediately put in place under the 
emergency  measures  system, 
the 
the 
regionalisation  of  the  disease.  A  good  example  of  EU  governance  and  coordination  is  the 
recent  management at EU level of the African  swine fever outbreak,  which reached the EU 
from Russia in 2014. Since the very early stages of the epidemics  - for which no vaccine is 

temporary  closing  of  borders  and 

including 

23 

 
 
 
 
available - the Commission have proactively promoted a common strategy amongst affected 
Member  States,  neighbouring  third  countries  and  bordering  Member  States  at  risk.  In 
particular, the Commission has given technical and financial support, providing trainings and 
ad-hoc supporting material in order to enhance their diagnostic capabilities. This coordinated 
action resulted in the containment of the disease and has limited costs for both the EU and the 
national budgets. It has also avoided major trade disruption, both within the EU and with non-
EU  countries.  For  all  programmes,  the  EU  co-funding  adds  value  to  the  situation  in  which 
only national funding would apply. 

As in the case of animal health, the EU intervention also supports the management of plant 
health  outbreaks, where the EU provides the financial  contribution needed at Member  State 
level to implement emergency measures. 

Moreover,  the  Union  support  facilitates  the  coordination  of  phytosanitary  surveillance 
activities, ensuring their uniform implementation in all Member States. 

The EU added value provided by the EURLs activities and the BTSF programmes is linked to 
the nature of their activities: the network  of laboratories ensures that all EU Member States 
work within a consistent and uniform regulatory framework and the EU training programme 
promotes  a  common  approach  towards  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation.  This 
contribution towards the harmonisation of rules at Union level and the sharing of knowledge 
and  expertise  in  the  food  safety  and  related  areas  is  a  main  example  of  positive  interaction 
within  the  EU,  which  could  not  be  achieved  through  isolated  efforts  at  national  level  and 
without the EU financial support. 

EQ4.  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequence  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  EU  co-
financing of the measures covered by the CFF?  

The most likely consequence of withdrawing the CFF financial support would be that many 
measures  would  not  be  implemented  any  longer,  especially  in  Member  States  experiencing 
budgetary  restrictions27.  Efforts  made  to  ensure  food  safety,  animal  and  plant  health  would 
therefore  be  reduced,  putting  at  risk  the  current  status  as  well  as  the  past  achievements  in 
these areas. In the case of trans-boundary diseases and pests, even the continuation of the CFF 
activities  in  some  Member  State  managing  to  confirm  the  financial  resources  in  this  area 
would be compromised. 

Due to the EU dimension of the activities carried out in the framework of the EURLs and of 
BTSF and of their objectives, those measures would cease completely should Union funding 
be stopped.28  

On  top  of  that,  in  the  event  of  a  food  crisis,  or  of  large-scale  outbreaks  from  either  animal 
diseases  or  plant  pests,  the  economic  impact  on  the  national  public  budgets  and  on  the 
economic sector concerned might be severe. Many studies have already addressed the topic of 
the  costs  of  food  crises  in  the  EU,  especially  as  concerns  some  animal  diseases  whose 

27 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 88-89 
28 Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 92-93, 

24 

 
 
 
                                                            
outbreaks have largely affected our productions over the last decades. FMD is an illustrative 
example  of  disease  which  might  affect  severely  the  agri-food  sector  and  on  the  European 
economy as a whole. To give an idea of the scale of the economic impact of such disease, we 
can refer to a study focused on the outbreak occurred in UK in 2001 (Economic costs of the 
FMD  outbreak  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  2001  (Thompson,  2002)),  according  to  which  the 
overall costs on agricultural producers, food industry, consumers and (national) public sector 
can be estimated at some £ 3,125 billion. For this crisis, the EU allocated about € 571 million 
to implement emergency measures in UK only. The intervention in the event of a new large-
scale  FMD  outbreak  would  require  the  emergency  vaccination  of  the  animal  population  at 
risk. A massive vaccination campaign at an average current cost of €2.5 per dose (including 
vaccination costs) to be inoculated twice per year would need to be conducted; considering an 
official  animal  population  of  some  340  million  heads  (cattle,  pigs,  sheep  and  goat),  the 
potential burden of this intervention (up to 1.7 billion euro) would severely threaten both the 
national budgets. In addition, a large number of animals might be slaughtered. Besides these 
direct costs, the impact on both trade and the internal market is to be taken into consideration. 
The block of exports  and of the internal  movements of food and live animals would hit the 
producers  as  well  as  the  whole  supply  chain,  endangering  the  existence  of  the  largest 
manufacturing sector in Europe, mostly made of SMEs. Just to give some figures, according 
to the 2015 EUROSTAT data, the value of export of food and live animals touched 82 billion 
euro.  As  concerns  intra-EU  trade,  40  million  animals  (considering  cattle,  pigs,  sheep  and 
goats only) were traded within the EU in 2015. This possible scenario might cause the fallout 
of the sector or the definitive collapse of its weakest segments, representing a dramatic loss 
for the competitiveness of the EU agri-food productions and of the EU economy as a whole. 

CONCLUSIONS 

6. 
Based on the analysis performed, it can be concluded that the CFF Regulation is functioning 
well in supporting the food and feed policy. 
Findings indicated that, to  a great extent,  the CFF objectives  are  relevant in  addressing the 
needs  within  the  food  chain,  ensuring  a  high  status  of  human,  animal  and  plant  health,  and 
therefore supporting the safety of the EU food products. The EU funding in this area supports 
the  legal  food  and  feed  framework  in  protecting  more  than  500  million  of  European 
consumers  and  facilitating  the  functioning  of  agri-food  supply  chains.  The  competitive 
position of this sector is supported by high food safety standards, which contribute to a global 
perception  of  high  quality  European  products.  The  CFF  has  been  proven  to  be  flexible  to 
address new needs for co-financing, especially in the emergence or re-emergence of outbreaks 
from  animal  diseases  such  as  Avian  influenza,  LSD,  or  emerging  risks  in  plant  health  like 
Xylella phastidiosa. 
The majority of the activities covered by the CFF proved to be effective in achieving the CFF 
objectives,  and  showed  progress  in  the  technical  operational  indicators  used  to  monitor  the 
CFF measures implemented. The consultation showed a large appreciation of the EU financial 
contribution especially by the CFF  direct beneficiaries, who consider both  the financial and 
technical  support  provided  under  the  CFF  to  be  adequate  and  to  effectively  support  the 
implementation of the food chain measures.  

25 

 
 
 
In relation to efficiency it can be concluded that the procedures in place allow for adequate 
prioritising  of  CFF  the  financial  resources  and  Member  States  manage  the  resources  well. 
Still, as previously explained, the absence of cost-effectiveness analysis in the CFF area limits 
the possibility to demonstrate the extent of the relationship between resources employed and 
results  achieved.  As  recommended  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  its  previously  mentioned 
performance audit - the Commission is working to develop a cost-effectiveness methodology 
to  be  implemented  in  this  area,  in  order  to  make  the  efficiency  analysis  more  robust.  As 
acknowledged by the Court, this kind of analysis is difficult to determine, due to the current 
lack  of  available  models  and  to  the  absence  of  specific  economic  indicators  at  international 
level.  The  possibility  to  develop  such  methodology,  including  a  set  of  cost-effectiveness 
indicators covering all CFF spending areas, is currently being investigated by the Commission 
in view of the ex-post evaluation of the CFF Regulation, to be conducted by June 2022. 
EU  spending  for  food  and  feed  measures  is  considered  to  be  largely  coherent  with  the 
political  priorities  in  the  food  safety  area,  and  a  positive  assessment  was  also  done  on  its 
complementarity with other related EU programmes, especially the CAP Regulation. 
The CFF has been shown to clearly contribute to achieving and supporting EU added value. 
Member  States  benefit  from  the  prioritised  and  targeted  implementation  of  EU  co-funded 
activities, especially for emergency, eradication, control and monitoring measures for animal 
diseases and plant pest throughout the Union. The financial solidarity that the CFF provides 
enables Member States to take required actions according to their interests. Otherwise these 
may have been beyond the financial and operational capacity of an individual Member State. 
The  CFF  enables  harmonised  and  robust  controls,  which  satisfy  an  important  need  with 
respect  to  an  effective  food  safety  policy.  The  findings  from  the  desk  study,  relevant 
stakeholders  in  questionnaires,  interviews,  and  case  studies,  confirm  that  the  measures  co-
financed  by  the  CFF  strongly  contribute  to  creating  EU  added  value.  The  added  value  goes 
beyond  what  individual  Member  States  could  achieve  by  implementing  national  measures 
without EU support.  

Overall, all activities receiving EU financial support in this area have proven to serve the CFF 
Regulation  general  and  specific  objectives,  namely  the  improvement  of  human,  animal  and 
plant  health,  as  well  as  the  overall  Commission’s  priorities,  including  the  functioning  of  an 
effective internal market and the support to trade with non-EU countries.  
In  recent  years substantial  progress  has  been  made on  most  of the 21 operational indicators 
used to monitor the progress and measure the outcome of the CFF implementation. 
The EU framework on food safety, animal and plant  health has been recognised as uniform 
and  consistent  in  its  application  and  enforcement  in  all  the  Member  States.  This  ensures  in 
turn that both citizens and businesses are confident that this framework is fair and effective in 
promoting high  safety  standards in  a key sector of the EU  economy. The EU investment in 
surveillance, disease and pest control and eradication, provides the infrastructure on which the 
safety  and  trade  in  the  entire  food  chain  is  based.  The  activities  funded  under  the  CFF 
Regulation contribute to an EU which is safe and secure, prosperous and sustainable, social, 
and stronger on the global scene. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

The evaluation was led by Directorate-General for Health and Food safety (DG SANTE). It is 
included in the Agenda Planning with the reference 2016/SANTE/142. 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  external  and  independent  evaluator,  under  a  service 
contract. The service contract has been implemented via a Framework Contract in accordance 
to  the  Financial  Rules  Applicable  to  the  General  Budget  of  the  Union29  and  its  Rules  of 
Application30. 

The evaluation Roadmap was adopted in July 201631. 

An Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) including staff from DG SANTE, from the Secretariat-
General  (SG)  and  from  the  Directorates-General  for  Budget  (BUDG),  for  Agriculture  and 
Rural Development (AGRI), and for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE), was established 
in April 2016. The ISG met in 5 occasions: to prepare the Roadmap (April 2016), to have a 
kick-off  discussion  with  the  external  evaluator  in  October  2015,  to  discuss  the  Inception 
Report in November 2016, to discuss the interim report in February 2017, to discuss the draft 
final  report  in  May  2017.  Extensive  correspondence  between  the  Steering  Committee 
members was held in between the meetings to follow-up on the evaluation. 

The final report was submitted in June 2017. 

The evaluation was not submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

The evidence base used to conduct the mid-term evaluation of the CFF Regulation included: 

-  Technical  and  financial  reports  prepared  and  submitted  by  the  CFF  beneficiaries  on 

the implementation of the CFF measures. 

-  The  consultation  of  some  170  stakeholders  directly  and  indirectly  involved  in  the 

implementation of CFF. 

-  12 cases studies. 
-  A  literature  review  of  studies,  reports,  evaluations,  audits  and  other  documents 

relevant in the context of the CFF evaluation. 

Together,  the  above  evidence  base  provides  the  evaluation  with  a  valid  and  rounded  set  of 
data  covering  the  main  aspects  of  the  CFF  evaluation  including  efficiency,  effectiveness, 
relevance, coherence and added value.  

29 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0966-20160101&from=EN 
30 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R1268-20160101&from=EN 
31 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_sante_142_evaluation_cff_en.pdf  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 2 – STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATION  

Three methods of stakeholder consultation have been employed for the evaluation: 

1.  Open public consultation 

2.  Targeted stakeholder consultation with specific questionnaires 

3.  Targeted stakeholder interviews 

Each of these is described in the following sections.  

-  Open public consultation 

An  open  public  consultation  of  all  interested  parties  was  conducted  using  the  European 
Commission  ‘Public  consultations’  website  (replacing  the  ‘Your  Voice  in  Europe’  website) 
and the DG SANTE ‘Consultations and feedback’ web page.  

The  consultation  took  place  from  16  December  2016  until  17  March  2017.  A  consultation 
questionnaire was prepared in English, discussed and agreed with DG SANTE and published 
on the Commission website. After the twelve-week consultation, five replies were submitted 
on this. 

-  Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Targeted questionnaire surveys have been used to acquire specific information from particular 
target groups. The stakeholders were identified by the stakeholder mapping exercise.  

Targeted questionnaires in English have been developed for the following groups:  

1.  Competent  authorities  (CAs)  in  Member  States,  stakeholders  linked  to  the  industry 
(including  farmers  organisations,  veterinary  organisations),  EU  and  national 
associations, international organisations and NGOs.  

2.  EURL stakeholders 

3.  Better Training for Safer Food stakeholders 

The  questionnaires  were  limited  in  the  number  of  questions  and  restricted  in  allowing  open 
responses. As far as possible, the focus was on closed questions, numbering and ranges. Some 
open  questions  were  used  to  provide  specific  comments  that  cannot  easily  be  captured  by 
closed  questions.  Open  questions  were  also  aimed  at  gaining  insight  (i.e.  explanations, 
motivations)  on  why  respondents  provided  certain  answers  to  specific  closed  questions.  In 
some  cases,  respondents  were  asked  to  support  their  answers  by  providing  evidence  (there 
was also a possibility to upload documents as evidence). 

The questionnaires include an introduction describing the subject and providing information 
on matters such as transparency and confidentiality (EU Transparency Initiative, including the 
option  to  register  in  the  Transparency  Register),  protection  of  personal  data  and  links  to 
relevant reference documents.  

28 

 
 
The questionnaire for group 1 had a function that presented selected questions to individual 
respondents on the basis of their role, involvement and expertise. Respondents were asked to 
identify  their  individual  characteristics  and  the  questions  were  filtered  accordingly.  This 
enabled the use of a general questionnaire for a range of different respondents.  

In  order  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  CFF  has  succeeded  in  achieving  its  objectives, 
statements were posed that needed to be answered on a 4-point or 5-point judgement scale.  

The  targeted  respondents  received  a  personalised  email,  including  a  link  to  the  online 
questionnaire  and  an  introduction  describing  the  background  and  the  importance  of  the 
evaluation. A Letter of Recommendation provided by DG SANTE was attached to the email. 
Two reminders were sent. The deadline for submission was extended by three weeks beyond 
the planned schedule. 

Table 4 shows the number of invited respondents, the number of responses and the response 
rate.   

Overall,  a  high  average  response  of  78 %  was  realised  for  the  invited  stakeholder 
questionnaires, while there were only five responses to the open consultation. 

Table  4.  Number  of  respondents  approached  to  complete  questionnaires  and  response 
rates 

Respondents 

Open 
consultation 

Targeted online questionnaires 

CAs and 
stakeholders 

EURLs 

BTSF 

Number 
approached 

Number of 
responses 

Public, open to 
all 

5 

81 

58 

45 

87 

34 + 6* 

69 

Response rate 

Not applicable 

72 % 

88 % 

79 % 

* The six EURLs with responsibilities regarding food and feed safety were approached and all 
responded 

-  Targeted stakeholder interviews  

On  the  basis  of  the  literature  review  and  the  on-line  survey,  topics  were  selected  for 
interviews  with  representatives  of  the  European  Commission  (DG  SANTE  and  DG  AGRI), 
and  with  selected  stakeholders  (competent  authorities,  industry  representatives,  targeted 
NGOs) in a number of Member States.  

In-depth 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 

29 

 
 
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. 
Interview notes were sent to the interviewee for conformation.  

Based  on  the  assessment  of  the  results  from  the  questionnaires,  ten  stakeholders  were 
identified  for  interview.  Table  5  provides  a  list  of  stakeholders  who  were  interviewed, 
including  a  short  motivation  and  example  of  questions  expressing  the  key  interest  for 
information  from  the  interviewees.  Complete  information  is  available  in  Appendix  D  to  the 
external  evaluation  study  supporting  the  Mid-term  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No. 
652/2014. 

Table 5. List of main stakeholders interviewed 

Stakeholders 

Reasons 

Main issues 

UK (CVO & 
CPHO) 

Key Member States have not 
answered the questionnaire 

European 
Professional 
Beekeeping 
Association 

A negative reaction to CFF 
in questionnaire 

Greece Competent 
Authority  

A positive reaction to CFF 
in questionnaire 

DG SANTE 

CFF Regulation  

Total questionnaire by phone; 

Unit costs and ceilings; 

Administrative burden 

What doesn’t function well? 

Why? 

How to solve? 

Why does it function well? 

What can we learn? 

Unit costs and ceilings;  

Administrative burden 

Choice process with respect to 
priorities; 

Interaction with Member States 
(bargaining, steering); 

Strengths  and weaknesses; 

Cost-effectiveness evaluation; 

Unit costs and ceilings;  

Administrative burden;  

Options for improvement; 

30 

 
 
NPPO, the 
Netherlands 

EU added value 

Why no added value in your opinion? 

Copa Cogeca, 

Important stakeholder  

How can this be changed? 

Discussion about the letter sent instead 
of the questionnaire; 

Functioning of single market;  

Plant health issues 

Plant health and 
small programmes 

Administrative burden 

Possible solutions 

DG AGRI  

Economic impacts,  

Proper functioning of the market; 

animal and plant health 

complementary regulation 

Competitiveness (static and dynamic 
impacts); 

Coherence with CAP; 

Indicators and input/output ratios 

Coherence (more in-depth); 

Check if the identified  incoherence are 
correct;  

Co-operation between DG AGRI  & 
DG SANTE on animal and plant health 

31 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – METHODOLOGY APPLIED 

The  methodology  used  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  CFF  Regulation  follows  the 
Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines32 and accompanying Toolbox33.  

To answer the evaluation questions, a comprehensive set of data covering all CFF spending 
areas was used as evidence base.  

For data collection, the following methods were used: 

1.  Desk research 

2.  Stakeholder  consultation 

to  collect 

information  and  opinions  from  different 

stakeholders (data collected by questionnaires and telephone interviews) 

3.  Case studies to collect evidence and experience on targeted thematic areas 

Desk Research was undertaken using reports available at the start and by literature research of 
scientific  publications  supplemented  with  data  sources  of  the  Commission,  (e.g.  budget 
expenditure,  operational  indicators,  trade  data,  animal  data).  In  addition,  the  desk  research 
included  annual  financial  and  technical  reports  covering  animal  and  plant  health, 
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF, and websites. 
Reports/evaluations/studies, working documents, data on operational technical indicators and 
financial  data  were  made  available  to  the  external  contractor.  Audit  and  inspection  reports 
from the DG SANTE Directorate in charge of Health and Food Audits and Analysis, and from 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were used, as well as documents on food chain 
funding,  country  submissions,  the  Standing  Committee  on  Plants,  Animals,  Food  and  Feed 
(PAFF), and task force presentations and reports.  

Gathering and assessing information from stakeholders was an important part of the research. 
The aim is to identify, select and weigh the results obtained from different stakeholders in a 
systematic way. For this purpose stakeholder mapping was used.  

Twelve case studies were undertaken covering the following co-financed measures:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

for food safety: veterinary programmes for salmonellosis and bovine brucellosis; 

for animal health: veterinary programmes for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, 
ovine and caprine brucellosis, rabies, and BSE; 

for animal health: emergency measures for highly pathogenic avian influenza; 

for  plant  health:  surveys  concerning  pests  not  known  to  occur  in  the Union  territory 
and  pests  considered  to  be  the  most  dangerous  –  for  citrus  tristeza  virus  and 
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus; 

32 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm 
33 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm  

32 

 
 
                                                            
- 

- 

for plant health: emergency measures for Anoplophora glabripennis; 

for  official  controls:  EURL  activities  for  salmonella,  mycotoxins,  GMOs  and 
pesticides; Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) initiative. 

The  case  studies  covered  the  evaluation  period  (2014-2016)  and  were  evaluated  against  the 
operational  technical  indicators  (see  Annex  IV  to  the  present  SWD)  and  the  identified 
evaluation  criteria  (relevance,  European  added  value,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence). Each case study was carried out in two ways: a general description of co-funding 
and analysis in the EU, and an in-depth description and analysis of the implementation of the 
case  in  two  Member  States.  The  in-depth  analysis  included  interviews  with  designated 
stakeholders. At least two interviews were planned for each case study.  

For food safety and animal health case studies, technical information has been sourced from 
the  EU  plenary  task  force  and  the  sub-groups  that  provide  tailored  technical  assistance  to 
Member  States.  This  includes  reviews  of  reports  and  meeting  minutes,  and  interviews  with 
members of the plenary committee or sub-groups.  

For plant health and official controls (EURLs and BTSF), the Official Controls Expert Group 
was  consulted  as  it  has  a  dialogue  between  Member  State  competent  authorities  and  the 
Commission.  

The criteria applied for selecting the case studies were that they: 

- 

- 

- 

cover co-funded activities for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 (when applicable); 

are co-funded in multiple Member States; 

include Member States with high financial awards; 

-  have a geographical spread over the EU; 

- 

contribute information related to the overall evaluation criteria; 

-  may have experienced recognised implementation issues; 

-  may have strong political or public/industry interest. 

The analysis of the case studies involved a similar approach as was chosen for the other parts 
of the study. It involved the following steps:  

-  Desk study 

-  Stakeholder consultation 

-  Analysis 

33 

 
 
 
34 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 – TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL INDICATORS  AND  THEIR  TARGET  VALUES  FOR 2017 
AND 2020 

Operational technical 
indicator 

Baseline 
2013 

Last available 
data* 

Intermediate 
Target 2017 

Final Target 
2020 

1.1 

1.2 

2.1 

2.2 

Reduction in the 
number of confirmed 
cases of 
salmonellosis in 
humans in Member 
States where a EU 
programme is co-
funded 

Reduction in the 
number of confirmed 
cases of brucellosis 
in humans in 
Member States 
where a EU 
programme is co-
funded 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States  which are 
free from bovine 
tuberculosis in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from bovine 
brucellosis in respect 
of which a financial 
contribution is 

Food safety measures 

82921 human 
cases 

94625 human 
cases 

-2  % per 
year 

-2  % per 
year 

(year 2015) 

425 human 
cases 

437 human 
cases 

-2  % per 
year 

-2  % per 
year 

(year 2015) 

Animal health measures 

HR free 

HR free 

 HR, PT free 

IT, PT, UK 
partly free 

IT, PT, UK 
partly free 

IT, PT, UK 
partly free 

IT, ES, UK 
partly free 

HR, IE, ES 
not free 

IE, ES not free  

(year 2016) 

IE, ES not 
free 

IE not free 

IT, PT, 
ES,UK ,HR,  
not free 

HR, UK free 

IT, PT, ES 
partially free 

 (year 2016) 

HR, ES, UK 
free 

HR, IT, PT 
ES, UK free 

IT, PT partly 
free 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operational technical 
indicator 

Baseline 
2013 

Last available 
data* 

Intermediate 
Target 2017 

Final Target 
2020 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

granted 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from ovine and 
caprine brucellosis in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States which are free 
from rabies in 
respect of which a 
financial 
contribution is 
granted 

Reduction of disease 
parameters in bovine 
tuberculosis in 
Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted: 

• Reduction of herd 
incidence 

• Reduction of herd 
prevalence 

IT, PT, ES 
partially free 

HR, EL not 
free 

HR free 

HR, ES  free 

IT, PT, ES 
partially free 

IT, PT, partly 
free 

HR, ES, IT, 
free 

PT partly free 

, EL not free 

EL not free 

EL not free 

(year 2016) 

AT, BG, EE, 
FI, IT, LV, 
LT free 

HR, EL, HU, 
PL, RO, SK, 
SL not free

AT, BG, EE, 
FI, EL, HR, 
IT, LV, LT, 
SK, SL free 

HU, PL, RO, 
not free 

(year 2016) 

AT, BG, HR, 
EE, FI, EL, 
HU, IT, LV, 
LT,SL, SK 
free;  

AT, BG, HR, 
EE, FI, EL, 
HU, IT, LV, 
LT,SL, SK 
PL, RO free 

PL, RO not 
free 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

Incidence:  

Incidence:  

HR: 0.14;  

HR free;  

HR free; 

HR, PT free;  

 IE 3.88; IT: 
0.84; PT: 
0.28; ES: 
0.91; UK: 
9.12 

Prevalence: 

HR: 0.16; IR: 
4.07; IT: 
0.97; PT: 
0.35; ES: 
1.39; UK: 
14.49  

IE 3.27; IT: 
0.61; PT: 0.19; 
ES: 1.59; UK: 
9.12 

Prevalence: 

HR free; IE: 
3.59; IT: 0.86; 
PT: 0.28; ES: 
2.87; UK: 
14.27 

(year 2016) 

 IE 2.91; IT 
0.54, PT 
0.20; ES 
0.95; UK 
6.90 

Prevalence:  

HR free; IE 
3.04; IT 0.65, 
PT 0.27; ES 
1.55; UK 
10.64 

IE, IT, ES, 
UK not 
defined 

Prevalence: 

HR, PT free;  

IE, IT, ES, 
UK not 
defined 

2.6 

Reduction of disease 
parameters in bovine 
brucellosis in 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

HR: 0; ES: 
0.06; UK: 

HR, UK: free; 
ES: 0.022; IT: 

HR, ES, UK 

HR, IT, PT, 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Operational technical 
indicator 

Baseline 
2013 

Last available 
data* 

Intermediate 
Target 2017 

Final Target 
2020 

Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted: 

0.13; IT: 
1.38; PT: 
0.22 

• Reduction of herd 
incidence 

• Reduction of herd 
prevalence 

Prevalence: 

HR: 0; ES: 
0.08; UK: 
0.14; IT: 
1.62; PT: 
0.27 

1.336; PT: 
0.175 

Prevalence: 

HR, UK: free; 
ES: 0.025; IT: 
1.646; PT: 
0.215 

(year 2016) 

free;  

ES, UK free 

Prevalence: 

HR, IT, PT, 
ES, UK free 

IT 0.92, PT 
0.18;  

Prevalence: 

HR, ES, UK 
free;  

IT 1.16, PT 
0.21 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

Reduction of disease 
parameters in ovine 
and caprine 
brucellosis in 
Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted: 

• Reduction of herd 
incidence 

• Reduction of herd 
prevalence 

Reduction in the 
number of cases of 
rabies in wildlife in 
Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted 

Reduction in the 
number of classical 
BSE cases in 
Member States 
where a Union co-
financing is granted 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

Incidence: 

HR: free 

HR, ES free;  

HR: N/A; 0; 
EL: 0.2; IT: 
1.07; PT: 0.8; 
ES: 0.1 

Prevalence: 

HR: N/A; 
CY: 0; EL: 
1.41; IT: 1.5; 
PT: 1.1; ES: 
0.17 

EL: 0.25; IT: 
0.842; PT: 
0.462; ES: 
0.063 

Prevalence: 

EL: 1.72; IT: 
1.206; PT: 
0.573; ES: 
0.085 

(year 2016) 

EL 0.275; IT 
0.48; PT 
0.41;  

HR, ES IT, 
free;  

EL, ES, PT 
not defined 

Prevalence: 

Prevalence: 

HR, ES free;  

EL 0.61; IT 
0.61; PT 
0.62;  

HR, ES, IT, 
free;  

EL, ES, PT  
not defined 

587 cases 

18 cases 

80 cases 

0 cases 

(2016 data) 

7 cases 

5 cases 

< 3 cases 

0 cases 

(2016 data) 

37 

 
 
 
Operational technical 
indicator 

Baseline 
2013 

Last available 
data* 

Intermediate 
Target 2017 

Final Target 
2020 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

4.1 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States covered by 
surveys for pests not 
known to occur in 
the Union territory 
(Category A 
according to the 
work programme for 
2017-2018 for the 
implementation of 
survey programmes 
for pests) 

Increase in the 
number of Member 
States covered by 
surveys for pests 
considered to be 
most dangerous for 
the Union territory 
(Category B 
according to the 
work programme for 
2017-2018 for the 
implementation of 
survey programmes 
for pests) 

Reduction in the 
number of outbreaks 
for pests covered by 
specific EU 
legislation 

Success rate of the 
tests performed by 
the participants after 
the training - from 

Plant health measures 

N/A 

78.57% 

(year 2016) 

80  % 

No 
intermediate 
target 

N/A 

75% 

(year 2016) 

80  % 

No 
intermediate 
target 

18 cases 

27 cases 
(2014 
baseline) 

22 cases 

No 
intermediate 
target 

BTSF activities 

N/A 

85% 

>70  % 

>70  % 

38 

 
 
Operational technical 
indicator 

Baseline 
2013 

Last available 
data* 

Intermediate 
Target 2017 

Final Target 
2020 

4.2 

5.1 

5.2 

2014: e-learning 
tool; from 2016: all 
trainings 

Overall satisfaction 
rate of participants 
attending the training 

Success rate of 
proficiency test, 
including the correct 
follow-up in cases of 
underperformance 

Satisfaction rate of 
participants 
attending the annual 
workshop (focus on 
contents only) 

* 2016 data are provisional 

90.17 % 

90.66% 

>80  % 

>80  % 

EURL activities 

N/A 

85.366% 

N/A 

87.442% 

>70  % 

No 
intermediate 
target  

>80 % 

No 
intermediate 
target 

39