REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 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) No 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  COM(2017) 546 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 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) No 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 {SWD(2017) 314 final} {SWD(2017) 315 final} {SWD(2017) 316 final}  
 
 
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 material1, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 
2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 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 

1. 

Introduction 

Regulation  (EU)  No  652/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  entered  into 
force at the end of June 2014 and established a Common Financial Framework (CFF) in the 
fields  of  food  chain,  animal  health  and  animal  welfare,  plant  health  and  plant  reproductive 
material (hereinafter: the "CFF Regulation"). 

The  present  report  is  prepared  under  article  42  ("Evaluation")  of  the  CFF  Regulation  itself, 
which requires the Commission to establish and present to the European Parliament and to the 
Council a midterm evaluation report covering the following spending measures: 

  veterinary eradication, control and surveillance programmes (hereinafter : "veterinary 
programmes") implemented by the Member States, which aim to progressively eliminate 
animal diseases and zoonoses and to implement disease control measures; 

  phytosanitary  survey  programmes  concerning  the  presence  of  pests  in  the  Union 

territory; 

  veterinary  and  phytosanitary  emergency  measures,  which  aim  to  timely  cope  with 

emergency situations related to, respectively, animal health and plant health; 

  European  Union  Reference  Laboratories  (EURLs)  activities,  which  aim  to  ensure 
high-quality,  uniform  testing  in  the  EU  and  to  support  Commission  activities  on  risk 
management in the area of laboratory analysis; 

  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. 

Under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the amounts allocated for the set 
of activities listed above represent almost the entire budget in the food chain area. 

1 

OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
The  present  report  describes the  outcome  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  exercise,  based  on  the 
external supporting study2 and on the internal assessment conducted at Commission level. It is 
accompanied  by  a  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD),  which  provides  an  overview  of  the 
technical and financial implementation of the CFF activities, and summarises the findings of 
the external supporting study. 

The EU spending programme provides financial support to achieve the objectives of the EU 
food and feed legislation. Its contribution to the achievement of the objectives is intrinsically 
correlated  with  the  contribution  of  national  spending  and  measures  that  legally  require 
Member States to take action. 

The  scope  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  covers  the  implementation  of  the  CFF  Regulation  in 
2014, 2015 and, based on preliminary data available, in 2016. The partial data available for 
2016 is a limitation for the present evaluation. 

2. 

Background and objectives of the CFF Regulation 

The CFF Regulation was established in order to improve the functioning of the spending for 
the  activities  implemented  within  the  food  chain  area,  as  well  as  to  focus  on  EU  funding 
priorities providing real added value. It modernised and rationalised the pre-existing financial 
provisions  under  a  single  framework,  with  harmonised  procedures,  standardised  payment 
rates, clarified eligible costs and measures.  

From  the  operational  point  of  view,  most  of  the  activities  and  measures  were  already 
supported  before  2014.  New  measures  were  introduced  in  the  phytosanitary  area,  namely 
the  possibility  to  co-finance  the  implementation  of  survey  programmes  concerning  the 
presence of plant pests in the Union territory.  

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 CFF Regulation itself, namely: food safety, animal health and 
welfare, plant health, official controls. 

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

To achieve its objective, a maximum total ceiling for expenditure of EUR 1 891 936 000 for 
the  seven-year  period  2014-2020,  covered  by  the  present  MFF  was  set  aside  for  the  CFF 
Regulation. 

2 

Mid-term  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  652/2014  prepared  by  IBF  International  consulting  (see 
attached staff working document). 

3 

 
 
                                                            
The CFF expenditure primarily consists of direct co-financing to  the Member States,  which 
are  the  almost  exclusive  beneficiaries  of  the  EU  spending  in  this  area.  The  Member  States 
receive a reimbursement for the eligible costs incurred to carry out the eligible measures. The 
Union financial contribution mainly takes the form of a grant. 

3. 

Outcome  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  CFF 
Regulation 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  42  of  the  CFF  Regulation,  the  mid-term 
evaluation report covers the following aspects: 

 

the achievement of the CFF objectives (Article 2(1)), as regards the efficiency of the use 
of resources and its added value, at Union level; 

 

the scope for simplification; 

 

 

the continued relevance of all objectives; 

the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth. 

It takes into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. 

The evaluation takes account of the progress made by using the six CFF indicators listed in 
Article 2(2)3.  

3.1 

Achievement of CFF Regulation objectives: efficiency and EU added value 

The general policy objective presented in the background of this report is complemented by 
four specific objectives, one for each of the four covered spending areas. 

  Animal health: 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:  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 (in the areas covered by the CFF 
Regulation). 

  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. 

3 Table 1 of the staff working document accompanying the present report 

4 

 
 
                                                            
These  specific  objectives  are  accompanied  by  the  six  CFF  Regulation  indicators  referred  to 
above,  which  provide  a  general  approach  to  follow  up  the  progress  of  the  spending  in  this 
area. In  order to  concretely monitor  and measure the performance of the CFF activities, the 
Commission services further translated those indicators into a comprehensive set of twenty-
one operational technical  indicators, defining specific targets for each of them4for 2017 and 
2020.  This  set  of  indicators  provides  information  on  the  technical  performance  of  the  CFF 
measures,  but  it  does  not  allow  the  assessment  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  programme. 
Particularly, the absence of available cost-effectiveness indicators limits the evaluation of the 
efficiency of the CFF measures. 

3.1.1  Animal health 

Achievements of objectives 

The  implementation  of  veterinary  measures  represents  the  largest  part  of  the  expenditure 
under the CFF Regulation budget, with the veterinary programmes alone exceeding75% of the 
total spending in 2014 and 2015. Payments for veterinary programmes in 2014 amounted to 
EUR 136 Million, out of EUR 180 Million and in 2015 amounted to EUR 148 Million out of 
194.  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. 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 from animal diseases, and an 
overall reduction in all monitored parameters.  A 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  2016,  hugely  reducing  a  significant  risk  to  health  and  enabling  free 
movement of cats and dogs within the EU. Another 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 
disease;  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 
positive trend  towards  the  complete  eradication  of  the  disease.  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).  While  indicators  on 
salmonellosis  and  brucellosis  in  animals  show  progress,  indicators  in  humans  have  not  yet 
shown  expected  results  of  a  yearly  2  per  cent  decrease  of  cases,  over  the  three-year  period 
under evaluation. 

4 

Details on both operational technical indicators can be found in Annex 4 to the SWD 

5 

 
 
                                                            
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 Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD), an infectious viral disease of cattle transmitted 
via infected saliva or through insects, introduced in the EU from Turkey. 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 support of the EU LSD vaccine 
bank  set  up  immediately  to  face  the  emergency.  This  vaccination  campaign  resulted  in  the 
successful  containment  of  the  disease:  no  further  Member  States  were  affected  in  2016  and 
the disease has not reoccurred in the vaccinated areas.  

Efficiency 

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.  

It has to be highlighted that a recent special report from the Court of Auditors5, published in 
April  2016,  considers  the  Commission'  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  programmes  meet  the  required 
criteria, and are generally well designed and properly implemented. Moreover, Member States 
prove  to  have  adequate  systems  to  identify  animal  disease  outbreaks  and  facilitate  their 
eradication.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  also 
acknowledges  a  lack  of  available  international  standard  models  and  economic  indicators, 
which  limits  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  demonstrate  the  cost-effectiveness  of 
veterinary expenditures. 

EU added value 

The  achievement  of  a  higher  animal  health  status  is  the  result  of  the  legal  measures  put  in 
place at EU level with the technical and financial support provided by the EU to the Member 
States. When a disease is suspected or confirmed, a number of prevention and control actions 
are immediately put in place under the emergency measures system, including the temporary 
closing  of  borders  as  regards  the  movement  of  susceptible  consignments  and  the 

5 

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

6 

 
 
                                                            
regionalisation6  of  the  disease.  The  variety  of  measures  to  put  in  place  to  tackle  animal 
diseases  and  the  fact  that  many  of  the  diseases  ignore  the  borders,  requires  a  centralised 
management  system  in  order  to  properly  coordinate  and  organise  the  implementation  of 
specific actions in the Member States.  

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. A good example of EU 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 
available  -  the  Commission  has  proactively  promoted  a  common  strategy  amongst  affected 
Member  States,  neighbouring  third  countries  and  bordering Member  States  at  risk  based  on 
EU  legislation  and  the  best  scientific  knowledge.  The  Commission  has  given  technical  and 
financial support for specific targeted measures to support the policy. This coordinated action 
resulted in the containment of the disease under the period covers by the current evaluation 
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. 

3.1.2  Plant health 

Achievements of objectives 

While  the  EU  financial support  for the  implementation  of  plant  health  emergency  measures 
has been provided for many years, the funding of plant health survey programmes is still at an 
initial phase. 

Survey programmes were established for the first time in 2015; the evaluation of their results 
has  therefore  been  limited  due  to  the  short  timeframe  and  the  absence  of  predecessor 
measures. Nevertheless, the EU Members States have welcomed their introduction since the 
very  first  year,  with  17  EU  countries  presenting  a  programme  in  2015  and  22  in  2016.  In 
2015,  the  implementation  of  surveys  programmes  has  allowed  the  detection  of  a  number  of 
new emerging risks in the Union territory such as the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa. 

The  budget  available  to  support  the  implementation  of  emergency  measures  and  survey 
programmes concerning the presence of pests represents a limited part of the total expenditure 
under  the  CFF  Regulation  budget.  In  2014,  spending  to  implement  emergency  measures 
amounted to EUR 7.7 Million and in 2015 to EUR 12.2 Million while spending on surveys 
programmes amounted to EUR 4.2 in 2015. 

To  follow  up  the  results  of  the  implementation  of  phytosanitary  emergency  measures,  the 
Commission  monitors  the  number  of  cases  for  a  selection  of  priority  pests,  including  some 
devastating  pathogen  such  as  the  Xylella  fastidiosa.  In  the  plant  health  area,  the  eradication 
objective  in  case  of  outbreak  is  possible  only  if  decisive  measures  are  put  immediately  in 

6 

Regionalisation is a recent methodology for disease control through the separation of disease free  and 
affected areas on the basis of epidemiological criteria. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
place and not when a pest is already endemic in the area. Difficulties in achieving eradication 
may result from a 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.  In  cases  where 
eradication is not feasible, containment is the only alternative in the present state of science. 
This highlights the importance of early detection to be achieved through survey programmes. 

Efficiency 

The implementation of the survey programmes aims to detect the presence of priority pests in 
the EU territory. In this view, a progressive increment of the financial resources is foreseen 
under  the  current  MFF,  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  due  to  emerging  risks  as  effect  of  climate change, 
global  trade  and  movement  of  travellers  around  the  world.  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, which  were  responsible for  almost  all  payments (91%).  During  the  period  under 
consideration,  the  EU  financial  support  for  the  implementation  of  emergency  measures  has 
contributed  to  prevent  the  further  introduction  and  further  spread  into  the  rest  of  the  Union 
territory of the above mentioned pests.  

EU added value 

The  EU  intervention  supports  the  management  of  plant  health  outbreaks,  where  the  EU 
provides  the  financial  contribution  needed  at  Member  State  level  to  implement  emergency 
measures with the aim to prevent further spread of the relevant pests into the rest of the Union 
territory. 

Moreover, a Union support facilitates the coordination among Member States with a view to 
survey  plant  pests  deserving  a  closer  attention  due  to  their  economic,  environmental  and 
social impact.  

Overall, the implementation of EU co-financed surveys programmes and emergency measures 
in  the  EU  territory  contributes  to  preserving  agricultural  production  through  plant  health 
protection,  as  well  as  protection  of  biodiversity  and  forests,  together  with  agricultural 
competitiveness. 

3.1.3  Official controls 

Achievements of objectives 

The  EU  financial  support  to  the  official  controls  system  addresses  two  major  instruments, 
covering almost  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 

8 

 
 
both the EURLs, and in the context of the BTSF initiative. Four operational indicators7 have 
been  developed  to  monitor  the  performance  of  the  main  measures  co-funded  in  the  official 
controls' area. 

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 tests8 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 control 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  useful  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  has  also  proven  to  be  helpful  in 
responding to new needs, notably during crisis events, when it contributed to both prevention 
and  crises-preparedness.  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. 

Efficiency 

Those 2 activities are financed at 100% by the EU, and each have an annual cost of about 15 
million  euro  for  the  EU  budget.  This  limited  cost  has,  nevertheless,  allowed  the  EURLs  to 
perform high-level  testing activities and to  train hundreds  of NRLs per year and  the BTSF 
have  trained  per  year  some  6000  officials  of  national  competent  authorities  involved  in 
official controls.   

EU added value 

The EU added value provided by the EURLs activities and the BTSF programmes is linked to 
the nature of those 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 

7 Annex 4 to the SWD 
8  Proficiency  testing  determines  the  performance  of  individual  laboratories  for  specific  tests  or  measurements 
and  is  used  to  monitor  laboratories’  continuing  performance.  It  is  also  called  inter-laboratory 
comparison.  As  this  term  implies,  proficiency  testing  compares  the  measuring  results  obtained  by 
different laboratories. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
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 major example of positive interaction 
within  the  EU,  which  could  not  be  achieved  through  isolated  efforts  at  national  level  and 
without the EU financial support. 

3.1.4  Food safety 

The achievement of the food safety objective has to be seen from an integrated perspective, 
being a horizontal goal resulting from the implementation and enforcement of the legislative 
framework  in  combination  with  the  contribution  of  the  EU  and  national  spending 
programmes.  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 and plants as well 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 effective enforcement of EU requirements in the above areas within the EU, and in non-
EU  countries  exporting  animals,  plants  and  products  to  the  EU,  is  key  to  maintaining  high 
levels of food safety. 

The EU's high standards both facilitate intra-EU trade and create opportunities for European 
businesses to compete on the global market. High levels of safety are fundamental to stable 
markets  and  consumer  confidence  and  also  protect  Europe  from  the  economic  and  human 
costs of disease outbreaks.  

In the period covered by the evaluation, around 200 audits and inspections have been carried 
out per year by the Commission services. Those have contributed to several key priorities of 
the  Commission,  notably:  a  regulatory  environment  which  facilitates  jobs,  growth  and 
investment  by  ensuring  high  levels  of  safety  supported  by  sound  control  and  enforcement 
systems; a deeper and fairer internal market by providing a level playing field where citizens 
and  businesses  can  be  confident  in  uniform  and  high  levels  of  safety  and  transparent 
information  on  the  state  of  implementation  of  controls  in  Member  States  and  non-EU 
countries  which  in  turn  informs  policy  makers  on  the  effectiveness  of  regulation  in  the 
relevant sectors. 

Through  its  audit  experience,  the  Commission  provides  important  feedback  on  the 
effectiveness, impact and added value of EU legislation and activities.  

If the achievement of the sectorial objectives analysed in the previous sections contribute to a 
positive assessment of the general food safety situation at EU level, the reputation of the EU 
food products needs no introduction. The EU agri-food productions are globally appreciated 
for  their  quality  as  well  as  for  the  high-level  safety  standards,  representing  the  largest 
manufacturing sector in Europe and a leading player worldwide. In this context, the EU food 
safety budget plays a crucial role in contributing to their competitiveness. 

10 

 
 
3.2 

Simplification 

In  line  with  the  Communication  'A  Budget  for  Europe  2020'9,  the  CFF  Regulation  was 
envisaged to modernise and simplify the pre-existing financial provisions. Simplification and 
rationalisation were addressed by: 

 

 

replacing the previous legal framework, over-complex and often out-of-date, with a single 
piece of legislation covering the whole food chain area; 

rationalising  the  funding  rates,  with  the  definition  of  three  standard  rates  only,  namely: 
50%, 75% and 100%; 

  aligning  the  procedures  in  the  phytosanitary  and  veterinary  fields  under  a  harmonised 

framework to ensure clarity, transparency and a sound regulatory environment;  

 

reducing the use of Comitology and Commission Decisions in order to short the time for 
contract and payment, 

An additional step towards the overall simplification of the system was the introduction of a 
unit  cost  system  used  for  reimbursing  the  activities  carried  out  to  implement  veterinary 
programmes. It covers about 50% of the eligible costs and is currently under revision in view 
of further extending it to other areas. The new system was perceived by both the Commission 
and the Member States as facilitating the request for funding and for reimbursements.  

As concerns reporting requirements, some Member States perceived them as disproportionate 
for the smallest veterinary programmes and emergency measures only. 

3.3 

Contribution to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 

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

The competitiveness of European food production depends on its reputation, with the EU food 
safety budget playing a crucial role in contributing to the safety and quality of European food 
products. 

But  aspects  such  as  the  globalisation  of  trade,  climate  change,  and  the  demands  of  trade 
partners as well as of consumer behaviour in case of food crises, present challenges to the EU 
system  of  production.  In  this  changing  world,  the  Europe  2020  growth  strategy10  wants  the 
EU to become a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. These three mutually reinforcing 
priorities  should  help  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  deliver  high  levels  of  employment, 
productivity and social cohesion. 

9 
10 

COM(2011) 500 final of 22.06.2011. 
COM(2014) 130 final of 19.3.2014. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
In the agri-food field, these goals could only be achieved if a high level of health for humans, 
animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas is guaranteed, and if actions to 
actively prevent and eradicate diseases and pests are implemented.  

3.4 

Relevance 

In line with the guiding principle of the Declaration of Rome11, the CFF measures contribute 
to  a  safe  and  secure  Europe,  where  citizen  can  access  high  quality  food,  respecting  the 
strictest international standards; risks related to human and public health are contained thanks 
to the long-term intervention of the EU in this area, as well as to its timely reaction in case of 
emergencies.  When  preventing  the  occurrence  or  the  spread  of  epidemics  in  the  Union 
territory,  the  food  chain  measures  play  a  key  role  in  protecting  the  EU  economy,  where 
veterinary,  phytosanitary,  and  food  crises  can  have  a  devastating  impact,  potentially 
generating  enormous  costs  for  both  public  budgets  and  for  the  whole  agri-food  sector.  This 
impacts  the  social  dimension  of  Europe,  having  a  positive  effect  on  the  protection  of  the 
interests of all EU citizens, from initial producers to final consumers. Eventually, this system 
makes its contribution to a stronger EU agri-food industry on the global scene, by creating the 
economies  of  scale  of  the  internal  EU  market,  which  in  turn  supports  the  exports  of  EU 
agricultural products. 

3.5 

Long-term impact of the predecessor measures 

Most of the activities currently covered by the CFF Regulation were already co-funded under 
the  previous  legislation.  Many  of  them,  especially  animal  health  measures,  require  by  their 
nature a long-term investment to achieve success. 

Among  the  main  achievements  resulting  from  the  long-term  impact  of  the  measures 
implemented before 2014, the eradication of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in cattle, a 
fatal disease which is transmissible to humans through the consumption of contaminated beef 
products, is a good example. The long-term EU co-financing against this disease played a key 
role resulted in a drop in the number of positive cases from more than 2000 in 2001 to 5 cases 
only  in  2016:  close  to  the  eradication.  This  in  turn  has  allowed  a  range  of  costly  protective 
measures to be withdrawn and the creation of new trade opportunities. 

Another  good  case  is  related  to  an  important  zoonosis  such  as  Rabies  that  has  been  almost 
eradicated in the EU in wildlife (complete eradication is expected by 2020) with the number 
of cases falling from 726 in 2010 to only 18 in 2016, enabling free movement of cats and dogs 
within the EU.  

A  decrease  of  the  infections  in  poultry  population  (such  as  laying  hens)  by  salmonella  spp. 
has  been  reported  following  the  implementation  of  EU  co-funded  salmonella  control 
programmes. This has lead also to benefits in terms of human health, being salmonellosis an 
important zoonosis and one of the main causes of human contamination is the consumption of 
eggs.  The  incidence  of  confirmed  human  cases,  analysed  over  a  period  longer  then  the 
timeframe under evaluation, has decreased from 105.450 in 2010 to 94.600 in 2015. However, 

11 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/05_the_rome_agenda_en_web.pdf 

12 

 
 
                                                            
yearly peaks of human cases can be observed due to several factors such as the interruption of 
the eggs cold chain.  

3.6 

Area of further consideration 

Under  the  EU  2014-2020  budget,  the  reserve  for  crises  in  the  agricultural  sector  is  not 
available for the food and feed programme. In the event of outbreaks of large-scale veterinary 
and  phytosanitary  epidemics,  such  as  the  recent  case  of  avian  influenza12,  whose  budgetary 
impact  might  not  be  accommodated  within  the  current  programme,  the  financial  support  to 
implement eradication activities and to timely contain the spread of these epidemics could be 
difficult. 

The funding of plant health activities is still at an initial phase and further consideration will 
need  to  be  given  to  properly  respond  to  the  needs  in  this  area,  e.g.  in  terms  of  integration 
between survey programmes and emergency measures. In the meantime should be noted that 
the  effectiveness  of  plant  health  emergency  measures  deserves  particular  attention.  In  this 
respect, it is important to consider that the achievement of the eradication of certain pests is 
often more complicated than in the animal health area due the high number of host species, 
latency  of  symptoms  and  their  presence  of  vectors.  In  cases  where  eradication  is  no  longer 
possible, a containment approach is still an effective way to prevent further spread of the pest 
into the rest of the Union territory. 

Some adjustments were introduced to adapt the financial tools used in these spending areas to 
the provisions of the current Financial Regulation13, notably the grants. However, experience 
shows  that,  taking  into  account  the  characteristics  of  the  food  safety  expenditure  (non-
competitive funding consisting of reimbursement to the Member States), grants are not always 
the best tool in the specific area of veterinary and phytosanitary measures. 

As  regards  financial  support  for  other  activities,  reflections  should  be  carried  out  on  how 
grants  aimed  at  supporting  a  more  sustainable  behaviour  of  certain  actors  in  the  food  chain 
contribute  to  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development,  as  referred  to  in  the 
Communication "Next steps for a sustainable European future". Available options should be 
further  examined  how  the  option  of  donating  food  that  is  safe  for  consumption  could  be 
supported by extending grants to organisations which are active in the redistribution of safe 
food, as suggested in the Special Report "Combating Food Waste" of the European Court of 
Auditors, 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The EU framework on food safety, animal and plant health has been generally recognised as 
uniform  and  largely  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 

12 The epidemic started in 2015 and has not extinguished yet. To date, provisional costs exceed EUR 110 
million. 
13 

Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). 

13 

 
 
                                                            
investment in surveillance, disease and pest control and eradication, contributes to the safety 
and trade in the entire food chain. The mid-term evaluation of the CFF Regulation shows that 
the  present  financial  framework  is  functioning  well  within  its  policy  context:  all  activities 
receiving  EU  financial  support  in  this  area  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. 

The CFF Regulation financial instrument has also proven to be flexible to address emerging 
needs for co-financing especially in the occurrence of outbreaks. The activities funded under 
the CFF Regulation provide a support to the EU food and feed framework which contribute to 
an EU which is safe and secure, prosperous and sustainable, social, and stronger on the global 
scene. 

14