COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Research Executive Agency and the European Research Council Executive Agency
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, consumer, executive agency, farming sector, financial control, foodstuff, performance audit, public health

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.4.2020  SWD(2020) 75 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Research Executive Agency and the European Research Council Executive Agency {COM(2020) 184 final} - {SWD(2020) 73 final} - {SWD(2020) 74 final} - {SWD(2020) 76 final} - {SWD(2020) 77 final} - {SWD(2020) 78 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 3 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................... 3 

2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison ...................................................................... 5 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 5 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................... 7 

4.1.  Short description of methodology........................................................................ 7 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings ................................................................ 8 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................. 8 

5.1.  Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 8 

5.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 12 

5.3.  Coherence .......................................................................................................... 15 

5.4.  Retrospective Cost-benefit analysis ................................................................... 19 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 21 

ANNEX : EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 23 

1 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this evaluation is the periodical (triennial) evaluation of the operation of 
the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA). CHAFEA 
is governed by its Act of Establishment1, which sets out the mandate of the Agency and 
the  Act  of  Delegation2,  which  specifies  the  tasks  to  be  carried  out  by,  and  the  powers 
delegated to the Agency to perform its mandate. These tasks relate to the implementation 
of dedicated parts of certain EU financial programmes in the fields of health, consumer 
rights  and  agriculture.  Furthermore,  the  Agency  is  governed  by  the  Framework 
Regulation for Executive Agencies3, which lays down general rules, notably in terms of 
governance and budget.  

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  principles4,  the  evaluation  assessed 
whether the Agency has fulfilled its tasks in an efficient and effective way, whether there 
are overlaps, gaps or inconsistencies within the management of the programme portfolio 
executed  by  the  Agency,  and  whether  there  is  a  clear  delineation  of  tasks  between 
CHAFEA and the parent DGs5. The results of this evaluation are summarised hereafter.  

The evaluation assesses whether the functioning of the Agency has yielded the expected 
positive  results  as  estimated  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis  for  delegating  task  to  the 
Executive  Agency6  and  identifies  potential  areas  of  improvement.  To  this  end  the 
estimations of the cost-benefit analysis of 2013 have been tested to provide evidence on 
the  validity  of  the  assumptions  made  in  the  ex  ante  scenario  by  considering  the  actual 
costs and benefits of programme implementation by the Executive Agency in a structured 
way. The aspects covered by the cost-benefit analysis are specified in Article 3(1) of the 
Framework  Regulation7  and  the  Guidelines  on  establishing  and  operating  Executive 
Agencies8.  
The  evaluation  does  not  cover  the  achievements  of  the  programmes  managed  by 
CHAFEA,  which  themselves  are  subject  to  mid-term  and  ex  post  evaluations.  The 
evaluation  of  CHAFEA  nevertheless  provides  useful  input  for  these  programme 

at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-

1 Commission Implementing  Decision 2013/770/EU as amended by Commission Implementing Decision 
2014/927/EU. 
2  Commission  Decision  C(2013)  9505  of  20  December  2013  as  amended  by  Commission  Decisions 
C(2014)  9594  of  19  December  2014,  C(2015)  2856  of  4  May  2015  and  C(2015)  8752  of  11  December 
2015. 
3 Council Regulation 58/2003 of 19 December 2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be 
entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes, OJ L 11 of 16 January 2003, 
p.1. 
4  Available 
regulation-why-and-how_en. 
5  CHAFEA’s  parent  DGs  are  DG  Health  and  Food  safety,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  DG 
Justice and Consumers, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 
6  Cost-benefit  analysis  for  the  delegation  of  certain  tasks  regarding  the  implementation  of  Union 
Programmes 2014-2020 to the executive agencies - Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 
7 The cost-benefit analysis shall take  into account  a number of factors such as identification of the tasks 
justifying  outsourcing,  a  cost-benefit  analysis  which  includes  the  costs  of  coordination  and  checks,  the 
impact  on  human  resources,  possible  savings  within  the  general  budgetary  framework  of  the  European 
Union,  efficiency  and  flexibility  in  the    implementation  of  outsourced  tasks,  simplification  of  the 
procedures used, proximity of outsourced activities to final beneficiaries, visibility of the EU as promoter 
of  the  EU  programme  concerned  and  the  need  to  maintain  an  adequate  level  of  know-how  inside  the 
Commission.  
8 Appendix II of the Guidelines for the establishment and  operation of executive agencies financed from 
the Union budget (C (2014) 9109 from 2 December 2014; pp. 64-72). 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
evaluations,  considering  that  the  performance  of  the  Agency  affects  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of the programmes it manages. 

The evaluation examines the efficient use of resources and the effective achievement of 
the tasks entrusted to it. In particular, it looks at whether the alignment of more coherent 
programme  portfolios  with  the  Agency’s  core  competences  and  its  brand  identity 
delivered the estimated qualitative benefits; whether the assembly of the management of 
different  EU  programmes  delivered  the  estimated  synergies,  simplification  and 
economies  of  scale;  whether  the  pooling  of  instruments  guaranteed  consistent  service 
delivery and whether there is scope for simplification and further efficiency gains. 

The evaluation is supported by a study carried out by an external contractor and it covers 
all  the  tasks  carried  out  by  the  Agency  during  the  years  2014-2016.  The  results  of  the 
study  are  summarised  hereafter  and  this  evaluation  will  be  presented  to  the  European 
Parliament, to the Council and to the Court of Auditors in accordance with Article 25(1) 
of the Framework Regulation.  

The  results  of  the  evaluation  will  feed  into  the  reflection  to  assess  the  opportunity  of 
expanding/modifying  the Executive Agency’s mandate in view of the delegation of the 
implementation of 2021-2027 EU programmes.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

According  to  the  Framework  Regulation  and  CHAFEA’s  Act  of  Establishment,  the 
outsourcing to CHAFEA intended: 

   To allow the Commission to focus on its institutional tasks assigned by the Treaty 
which  require  discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into  action. 
Such institutional tasks should not be outsourced. 

   To enable achieving the goals of EU programmes more effectively. According to 
the  cost-benefit  analysis  carried  out  in  2013,  delegating  tasks  to  the  Executive 
Agency  was  estimated  to  be  more  cost-effective  than  an  in-house  scenario.  The 
Act of Establishment estimated  that the  alignment of more  coherent programme 
portfolios with the Agency’s core competences and its brand identity would bring 
qualitative  benefits.  In  addition, it  projected that  assembling the management of 
different EU programmes would bring synergies, simplification and economies of 
scale. 

The  original  objective  of  the  intervention  is  entrusting  the  Agency  with  the 
implementation of several EU programmes in parts or fully: 

the consumer programme 2014-2020 (DG JUST); 
the public health programme 2014-2020 (DG SANTE and DG GROW); 
the food safety training measures (Better Training for Safer Food - BTSF) under 
the  Common  Financial  Framework  for  Feed  and  Food  (CFF  Regulation 
652/20149) (DG SANTE); 
the  information  provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural 
products  implemented  in  the  internal  market  and  in  third  countries  (Regulation 
1144/201410) (DG AGRI). 

9 OJ L 189, 27 June 2014, p. 1–32. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                           
The Agency also implements the legacy of the predecessor programmes and actions11. 
CHAFEA carried out the following tasks: 

(a)  (i)  monitoring  the  projects,  making  the  necessary  checks  and  recovery  procedures; 
performing budget implementation tasks covering revenue and expenditure: 

   awarding  grants  and managing the  ensuing agreement  or decision, including the 

operations required to launch and conclude grant award procedures; 

   concluding  public  procurement  procedures  and  managing  the  ensuing  contracts, 
including  the  operations  required  to  launch  and  conclude  public  procurement 
procedures; 

   performing  all  the  operations  required  to  launch  contests  and  award  prizes  in 

accordance with the relevant rules; 

(a) (ii) regarding simple programmes, CHAFEA is entrusted with the publication of the 
calls for proposals and with the selection of the programmes, both “simple” and “multi”; 

(b) providing support in programme implementation, in particular: 

   collecting, processing and distributing data, and in particular compiling, analysing 
and 
to  guide 
implementation  of  the  programme,  promote  coordination  with  other  Union 
programmes, the Member States or international organisations; 

the  Commission  all 

information  required 

transmitting 

to 

   contributing to evaluation of the impact of the programme and to monitoring the 

actual effect of the measures; 

   managing  and  directing  a  network,  in  particular  concerning  the  target  public 

(beneficiaries, recipients, projects, actors); 

   organising  meetings,  seminars  or 

training;  organising 
Commission's  own  information  and  promotion  campaigns  for  agricultural 
products; 

talks;  organising 

   contributing  to  studies and  evaluations, in particular  the annual and/or mid-term 
evaluation of implementation of the programme, and contributing to preparation 
and implementation of follow-up action on evaluations; 

   preparing  recommendations  for  the  Commission  on  implementation  of  the 

programme and its future development; 

   planning and implementing information operations; 
   ensuring overall control and supervision data; 
   participating in preparatory work on work programmes and financing decisions; 
   managing technical support services. 

2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison  

The  current  evaluation  of  CHAFEA  operations  during  2014-2016  assesses  the  actual 
costs  and  benefits  of  programme  implementation  by  CHAFEA  (executive  agency 
scenario)  when  compared  with  the  alternative  scenario  of  management  by  the 
Commission services (in-house scenario). 

10 OJ L 317, 4 November 2014, p. 56–70.  
11 The public health programme 2008-2013; the consumer programme 2007-2013; the food safety training 
measures  covered  by  Directive  2000/29/EC,  Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004,  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1905/2006 and Decision C(2012) 1548; the management of the agreement with European Association for 
the  Coordination  of  Consumer  Representation  in  Standardisation  (ANEC),  governed  by  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1025/2012. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Accordingly, the reference point for the present CHAFEA evaluation is the 2013 ex ante 
cost-benefit analysis, and the specific financial statement (SFS) of CHAFEA. 

According  to  the  SFS  of  CHAFEA  prepared  in  2013,  the  estimated  efficiency  gains 
amounted  to  EUR  2.3  million  over  the  period  analysed.  The  total  number  of  full  time 
equivalents (FTEs) required to manage the relevant programmes in year 2020, the peak 
programming  year  in  terms  of  workload,  was  estimated  at  79  for  CHAFEA.  The  total 
initial  operational  budget  entrusted to  CHAFEA  in  2020 was estimated  at  around EUR 
198.868  million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  EUR  176.759  million  in  payment 
appropriations. Considerable efficiency gains were expected as compared to the in-house 
scenario over the period, along with non-quantifiable benefits such as improved quality 
of  programme  management  and  service  delivery,  improved  visibility  of  the  EU 
programmes and proximity to beneficiaries. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Initially founded as an executive agency for the management of the EU programme in the 
field  of  public  health  (PHEA)12,  CHAFEA  has  been  progressively  entrusted  with  the 
implementation  of  the  public  health  programme,  consumer  programme  and  food  safety 
the  Commission 
training  measures.  The  Agency’s  mandate  was  extended  by 
Implementing  Decision  No  2014/927/EU,  amending  Commission  Implementing 
Decision  2013/770/EU,  which  came  into  effect  on  1 January 2014.  Through  this  new 
Decision, CHAFEA was entrusted with certain implementation tasks of the information 
provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the 
internal market and in third countries as well as Commission own initiatives. 

The new mandate also brought changes in the governance of the Agency as new parent 
DGs  joined  the  Steering  Committee,  and  subsequently  signed  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  (MoU)  with  CHAFEA13.  The  new  MoU  defined  the  modalities  and 
procedures of interaction between CHAFEA and its parent DGs. In addition, it brought a 
clearer  delimitation  of  the  administrative  activities  between  the  Agency  and  its  parent 
DGs. The distribution of tasks and responsibilities, as presented in the MoU, is included 
in  section  5.3  of  this  document.  Compared  to  this  reference,  this  evaluation  assesses 
whether  this  distribution  of  roles  has  been  respected  for  the  2014-2016  period,  and  the 
effects of the intervention on the coherence and the efficiency of CHAFEA’s action.   

At the beginning of 2014, CHAFEA was already a well-established organisation based in 
Luxembourg  with  a  stable  level  of  staffing.  The  Agency  had  49  staff  (without 
intérimaires) in 2014 and 2015, and 59 staff14 (without intérimaires) in 2016. The number 
of  projects  only  slightly  increased  over  the  period  and  the  number  of  total  running 
projects ‘per head’ thus decreased from 4.88 in 2014 to 4.31 in 2016. The total number of 
funded projects increased in particular in the public health programme, from 27 in 2014 

12  Commission  Decision  2004/858/EC  setting  up  an  executive  agency,  the  ‘Executive  Agency  for  the 
public  health  programme’,  for  the  management  of  Community  action  in  the  field  of  public  health  — 
pursuant  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  58/2003,  repealed  by  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2013/770/EU establishing the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency.  
13  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive 
Agency  and  DG  Health  and  Food  Safety,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  DG  Justice  and 
Consumers, DG Internal market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, signed on 09 December 2016. 
14 See Figure 3, Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p.19. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
to  57  in  2016  and  in  the  Consumer  protection  programme,  from  92  in  2014  to  124  in 
2016.  The  Agency  began  implementing  activities  under  the  promotion  of  agricultural 
products  programme  in  2016,  receiving  226  proposals  (of  which  199  ‘simple’  and  27 
‘multi’ proposals15) and funding 6 ‘multi’ programmes.  

The operational budget of CHAFEA (according to payments) increased from EUR 61.27 
million in  2014 to  EUR 66.26 million  in 2015 and to EUR 80.73  million  in  2016. The 
Agency’s  administrative  budget  increased16  as  well  from  EUR  6.62  million  in  2014,  to 
EUR 6.73 million in 2015 and to EUR 8.16 million in 2016. The total budget ‘per head’ 
(in terms of payments) increased from EUR 1.25 million to 1.65 million between 2014 
and  2016.  This  relates  mostly  to  the  growing  volume  of  the  operational  budget,  which 
outpaced an increase in the number of the Agency’s staff between 2014 and 2016. 

The  number  of  proposals  (both  for  grants  and  projects)  managed  ‘per  head’  shows  a 
greater  year-to-year  variability,  with  an  increase  of  50%  between  2014  and  2016. 
Programme  management  costs  (defined  as  the  ratio  between  the  administrative  and 
operational budget) only slightly decreased, from 8.97% to 8.70%. The costs of auditing 
the grant management process during the year fell from 5.3% in 2014 to 3% in 2016. 

A series of organisational and procedural changes started with the implementation of the 
programmes under the multiannual financial framework (MFF) of 2014-2020: 

   Delegation  of 

the  management  of  additional  programmes,  new  funding 

instruments and as a consequence new tasks and activities for the Agency17. 

   Further  simplification  and  improvement  of  grant  management  processes  and 
procedures,  notably  through  the  electronic  submission  of  proposals  and  the 
adoption of the Commissions IT tools and systems (i.e. Compass-SyGMa).  

   The  adoption  of  new  business  processes,  Horizon  2020  IT  tools  and  modes  of 

service delivery18. 

   The  adoption  of  the  multiannual  human  resource  (HR)  strategy  for  2017-2020, 
mainly  as  a  response  to  the  relatively  low  staff  satisfaction  rates  revealed  by  the 
staff opinion survey 2016. Based on this new strategy and in combination with a 
dedicated action plan addressing attention points identified through the survey, the 
Agency  implemented  specific  measures  related  to  staff  engagement,  internal 
communication,  career  development  opportunities,  work  and  private  life  balance 
and  training,  meant  to  improve  effective  HR  management  and  increase  the 
effectiveness and flexibility of the Agency’s operations.  

15‘Simple  programmes”  (proposed  by  one  or  more  organisations  from  same  Member  State),  and  “multi 
programmes”  (proposed  and  run  jointly  by  organisations  from  several  Member  States  or  EU  level 
organisations)” 
16 See Figure 4, Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p.20. 
17  The  Agency’s  mandate  was  extended  by  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  No  2014/927/EU, 
amending Commission Implementing Decision 2013/770/EU, which came into effect on 1 January 2014. 
Through this new Decision, CHAFEA was entrusted with certain implementation tasks of the information 
provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the  internal  market 
and in third countries as well as Commission own initiatives.  
18 Horizon 2020 is the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  a  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor19.  The 
methodology of the CHAFEA  evaluation was consistent with the approaches employed 
for  similar  parallel  evalautions  of  EACEA,  ERCEA,  EASME,  REA  and  INEA.  The 
evaluation  methods  used  included:  desk  research  and  analysis  of  business  processes, 
statistical  analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  interview  programme,  case 
studies,  surveys,  cost-benefit  analysis,  focus  group  and  benchmarking.  Specific 
methodological  approaches  were  used  to  ensure  data  triangulation  (confirmation  from 
different sources). 

The study was structured around a series of evaluation questions available in Annex.  

The evaluation relied on the following data and methodology:  

An  extensive  documentary  review  and  desk  research  of  CHAFEA  and  Commission 
documents,  including  Annual  Work  Programmes  and  Annual  Activity  Reports,  audit 
reports  and  related  documents,  CBA  studies  and  other  financial  documents,  the 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MoU),  previous  evaluations  and  action  plans 
addressing the ensuing recommendations. The evaluation also relied on the results of the 
2016 staff opinion survey. 

Exploratory interviews  were  conducted with Commission  and CHAFEA staff members 
(around  60  persons),  in  particular  managerial  staff  of  CHAFEA  and  of  the  parent  DGs 
(33  interviews  in  total)  and  with  the  Agency’s  beneficiaries  and  intermediaries  (33 
interviews in total), with a focus on the case studies.  

Two  interlinked  surveys  addressed  various  target  stakeholder  groups.  The  first  was 
addressed  to  private  bodies  acting  as  intermediaries  or  facilitators  for  projects  and 
beneficiaries of the ‘standard’ calls for proposals (for all four programmes managed by 
CHAFEA).  92  intermediaries  and  beneficiaries  responded  to  this  survey.  The  second 
survey  targeted  external  experts  contracted  by  CHAFEA.  87  experts  responded  to  this 
survey. 

Case  studies  were  used  to  complement  the  interview  programme  and  desk  research  to 
provide in-depth insights into the performance of the Agency on issues such as coherence 
and  maintenance  of  the  know-how  within  the  Commission,  efficiency  of  introduced 
simplification  measures,  etc.  Those  case  studies  have  fed  the  different  assessment 
questions.  

A retrospective cost-benefit analysis was performed. 

A  focus  group  meeting  composed  by  representatives  of  CHAFEA,  members  of  the 
Steering  Committee,  Commission  staff  and  stakeholders  was  organised  to  present  and 
validate the findings and the recommendations of the evaluation20.  

19  Study  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the  operation  of  CHAFEA,  Final  Report,  2018  performed  by  the 
Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI), the Centre for Strategy and Study Services (CSES) and 
Maastricht University. 
20 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 145-146. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A  comparative  analysis  and  benchmarking  of  the  various  Executive  Agencies  was  also 
carried  out  against  a  set  of  (qualitative  and  quantitative)  indicators.  This  enabled  the 
evaluation team to compare the performance of CHAFEA effectively with that of other 
Executive Agencies. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

Most relevant stakeholder groups were consulted (beneficiaries, intermediaries, external 
experts).  However,  compared  with  the  overall  population  reached,  unsuccessful 
applicants participated less actively in the survey than programme beneficiaries. 

No sampling bias was observed as the profile of the respondents to the surveys was very 
similar  to  the  overall  population,  guaranteeing  statistical  representativeness.  The  non-
response bias (not all characteristics of the group that did not reply had been captured in 
full)  was  mitigated  through  triangulation  with  the  results  of  follow  up  interviews.  The 
triangulation  approach,  using  multi-level  and  multi-stakeholder  dimension  in  the  data 
collection, ensured the robustness and reliability of the data and information used to draw 
up conclusions in the supporting study. 

Some  views  from  Commission  and  Agency  staff  gathered  from  the  interviews  and 
mentioned  in  the  study  illustrate  personal  experience,  although  they  may  not  be 
representative of overall relations between the Commission and the Agency. 

The availability of comparable data with  other Agencies was also  a limit for the study. 
For  example,  the  satisfaction  of  experts  and  beneficiaries  of  CHAFEA  could  not  be 
compared with that of other Executive Agencies. This is mainly due to the fact that final 
studies supporting the evaluations of the other Executive Agencies were not finalized at 
the date when the final report concerning CHAFEA was submitted and presented to the 
Steering Committee of the Agency21. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Effectiveness  

For the purpose of this evaluation, effectiveness relates to how successful the Agency has 
been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. 

The evaluation inferred that during 2014-2016 CHAFEA operated according to the legal 
framework  that  established  it.  CHAFEA’s  activities,  as  planned  in  the  annual  work 
programmes and reported in the annual activity reports, corresponded to the tasks set out 
in the Commission’s establishment and delegation Decisions. 

As  provided  in  the  delegation  Decision,  the  modalities  and  procedures  of  interaction 
between the Agency and its parent DGs are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding 
(MoU).  The  MoU  provides  for  a  supervision  strategy  aimed  at  avoiding  gaps  or 
duplication  of  efforts  resulting  from  crossover  between  the  policy-making,  monitoring 
and  supervision  tasks  of  the  parent  DGs  and  the  execution  tasks  of  the  Agency.  These 

21 On 18 October 2018, during the 55th CHAFEA Steering Committee meeting. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
provisions have generally worked well but further improvements are needed (see section 
5.3).  

In the evaluation period, CHAFEA continuously improved its operations and achieved a 
sound  level  of  overall  effectiveness.  The  Agency  demonstrated  a  high  degree  of 
flexibility to integrate  all the key changes  encountered, especially those induced by the 
extended  mandate22.  During  the  reference  period,  CHAFEA  has  taken  the  necessary 
measures  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  new  programmes  and  adjust  its  internal 
procedures to the emerging challenges and needs. However, some  of these changes are 
highlighted  in  the  support  study  as  having  raised  systematic  challenges  (i.e.  the  new 
instruments,  such  as  operating  grants  and  framework  partnership  agreements,  were 
initially not  fully integrated into the corporate  IT tools23).  In this  respect,  new modules 
were adapted to the needs of CHAFEA’s programmes. The Agency dedicated continuous 
efforts  to  integrate  these  needs  and  to  ensure  an  optimal  service  to  its  applicants  and 
beneficiaries. 

Other  challenges  encountered,  related  to  the  late  adoption  of  the  2014  annual  work 
programme, had direct relevance for the Agency’s functioning in the public health area. 
The  support  study  identified  that  around  20-25%  of  planned  tenders  in  the  Health 
programme  were  not  implemented  following  the  formal  adoption  of  the  2014  annual 
work programme and financing Decision. Furthermore, there is an increasing need for a 
strengthened cooperation with the parent DGs (see the “Coherence” section). 

Evidence  collected  from  the  annual  activity  reports  combined  with  interviews  and 
surveys concludes that the Agency has achieved to a large degree its objectives set out in 
its annual work programmes between 2014 and 2016. For each delegated programme the 
Agency has managed to be responsive to requirements and has accommodated effectively 
all the key related changes. 

The  Agency  has  effectively  produced  the  planned  outputs  (i.e.  issuing  calls,  evaluating 
proposals  and  administering  grants  and  tenders)  and  achieved  good  results  in  terms  of 
key  performance  indicators  (KPI)24,  which  were  not  affected  by  the  extension  of  its 
mandate.  Over  the  evaluation  period  CHAFEA  has  efficiently  managed  the  delegated 
programmes and achieved all its targets with respect to the timely evaluation and grant 
finalisation (Time-to-Inform (TTI), Time-to-Contract (TTC)25 and Time-to-Grant (TTG) 
and timely execution of payments (TTP). 
Regarding the Time-to-Inform, the Agency was successful in reaching TTI targets26 for 
all  programmes  (e.g.  for  the  consumer  programme,  the  average  TTI  decreased  by  half, 
from  94  days  in  2014  to  47  days  in  2016)27.  For  the  Time-to-Contract,  CHAFEA  also 

22 This conclusion was supported by the Agency staff and DG officials. 
23 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 29. 
24 Time-to-Inform (TTI), Time-to-Contract (TTC), Time-to-Grant (TTG) and timely execution of payments 
(Time-to-Pay (TTP). 
25  Some  challenges  occurred  with  respect  to  the  share  of  grants  concluded  within  TTC  target  for  Health 
programme where almost one third of grants were concluded after TTC target. The late publication of calls 
in 2014 did not allow for grant agreements to be signed within the same year. 
26 All applicants are to be informed of the outcome of the evaluation of their application on the basis of a 
reference period of maximum six months starting from the final date for submission of complete proposals 
(Art 194 (2) (a) of the Financial Regulation). 
27 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 45. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
reached the TTC targets28 for the programmes managed (e.g. for the health programme, 
TTC even decreased from 82 days in 2014 to 68 in 2016). The Agency’s average Time-
to-Grant for all programmes was well below the TTG target29 (e.g. the shortest average 
TTG in 2016 was for the consumer programme – 100 days, whereas the longest TTG was 
for the new AGRI programme – 235 days)30. With respect to the Time-to-pay indicator, 
CHAFEA’s average TTP remained significantly below the contractual thresholds for all 
types of payments31. 

The Agency was also able to achieve an almost full execution of its operational budget 
(which ranged from 97% to 100%) during the evaluation period, depending on the year.  
Operational  commitment  appropriations  from  the  EU  general  budget  were  almost  fully 
executed  (around  99%),  while  the  execution  rate  for  the  payment  appropriations32 
constituted 100% in 2014-2015 and 97% in 2016. 

The  multi-annual  residual  error  rate  was  below  the  2%  materiality  threshold  for  all 
programmes  delegated  to  the  Agency  (e.g.  the  estimated  residual  error  rate  for  the 
consumer  programme  decreased  from  1.18%  in  2014  to  0%  in  2016,  while  for  the 
Health  programme  was  near  the  2%  threshold  in  2014  and  2015,  but  it  decreased  to 
1.37% in 2016)33. 

Over  the  evaluation  period,  significant  improvements  have  been  achieved  in  the 
management  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  the  Agency.  Through,  among  others,  the 
simplification  of  the  procedures34,  the  implementation  of  new  IT  tools  and  modes  of 
service  delivery,  the  new  measures  introduced  to  improve  the  quality  of  deliverables35, 
the Agency has effectively contributed to the overall improvement of the management of 
the programmes entrusted to it (see “Efficiency” section).  

Overall  satisfaction  with  the  performance  of  the  Agency  is  high.  Around  74%  of 
beneficiaries  responding  to  the  survey  were  satisfied  with  the  services  provided  by  the 
Agency.  In  particular,  32%  of  respondents  declared  to  be  very  satisfied36.  Most 
beneficiaries  and  intermediaries  of  the Agency (95%) further  indicated that they  would 
certainly  or  possibly  consider  applying  for  CHAFEA’s  calls  or  tenders  again  in  the 
future37. The same response was provided by a similar share of CHAFEA’s independent 
experts: 88% stated that they would certainly consider working with CHAFEA again in 
the future38. In general, the surveys show that CHAFEA had a positive performance with 
the  application,  grant 
respect 

lifecycle  stages, 

the  project’s 

including 

to  all 

28 For signing grant agreements with applicants, a maximum of three months is foreseen from the date of 
informing applicants that they have been successful (Art 194 (2) (b) of the Financial Regulation). 
29  The  target  for  TTG  for  all  grant  agreements  was  9  months  from  the  call  for  proposals  deadline  to 
signature of grants. 
30 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 48. 
31 Ibid, p 50. 
32 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 51. 
33 Ibid, p. 52. 
34  Such  as  the  use  of  standard  cost  options  for  the  Exchange  of  Officials  supported  under  the  consumer 
programme  or  the  use  of  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  for  operating  grants  in  Health  Programme 
and European Consumer Centres’ grants in consumer programme. 
35 Extending the review period for reports, implementing a new tool to anticipate staff workload, or using 
E-tenderer to answer questions relating to a procedure. 
36 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 37. 
37 Ibid, Figure 6, p. 37. 
38 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 38. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
finalisation/contracting, project/contract implementation, grant amendment, reporting and 
payment phases.  

In  terms  of  proximity  to  the  addressees,  the  Agency  worked  effectively  with  its 
beneficiaries and served as a direct contact point between the applicants/beneficiaries of 
EU  co-financing.  CHAFEA  maintained  effective  communication  arrangements  with 
potential beneficiaries of the programmes in the form of organised stakeholders sessions 
where  relevant  information  was  provided  in  relation  to  each  programme’s  objectives. 
Furthermore, the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal became the single-entry point for any 
information on a call, proposal submission and evaluation, grant management, eligibility 
of  costs  and  other  data.  The  Agency  also  ensured  the  relevant  professional  support  to 
addressees  on  grant  preparation  and  the  use  of  the  new  IT  tools  in  the  management  of 
Joint Actions under the Health Programme. This has had a practical positive development 
translated in the sharp decrease of the number of complaints39 about technical difficulties 
received from applicants in 2014 and 2015. 

This  proximity  to  addressees  is  confirmed  by  survey  data.  91%  of  experts40  found 
information  delivered  by  CHAFEA  to  be  clear  and  sufficient.  90%  of  beneficiaries 
thought that CHAFEA staff was easily available and responsive41. Results regarding the 
tendering process are less satisfactory. The evaluation process was clear and transparent 
for  only  55%  of  service  providers42.  The  relatively  low  satisfaction  among  service 
providers was related to certain aspects of the services delivered by the Agency (e.g. the 
results  of  the  tender  evaluation  should  have  been  better  explained  and  presented  to  the 
tenderers).  With  respect  to  service  contracts,  66%  of  service  providers  thought  that 
CHAFEA  gave  them  useful  feedback  on  the  progress  of  their  contract43.  13%  of 
beneficiaries believed that funding opportunities for the programmes are well advertised, 
showing  room  for  progress  in  the  proximity  to  all  potential  addressees44.  According  to 
the  survey  conducted  for  the  evaluation,  around  88%  of  external  experts  who  worked 
with  CHAFEA  during  the  evaluation  period  mentioned  their  commitment  to  working 
with  the  Agency  again  in  the  future45,  being  at  94%  satisfied  with  CHAFEA’s 
responsiveness and at 92% satisfied with CHAFEA’s competence.  
Concerning  the  visibility  of  the  EU  as  a  promoter  of  the  programmes  entrusted  to 
CHAFEA,  the  survey  shows  that  a  large  majority  of  beneficiaries  (82%)46  were  aware 
that CHAFEA  was entrusted by  the  Commission to manage EU projects  funded by the 
EU budget.  

5.2.  Efficiency  

This section considers the relationship between the resources used by the Agency and the 
output.  The  analysis,  among  other  factors,  also  includes  analysis  of  administrative  and 
regulatory burden and looks at aspects of simplification. 

39 From around 20% in 2014 to 5% in 2015. 
40 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, p. 56. 
41 Ibid, p. 57. 
42 Ibid, p. 61. 
43 Ibid, p. 63. 
44 Ibid, p. 43. 
45 Ibid, p. 43. 
46 Ibid, p. 43. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
During the  2014-2015 period, the programme management  cost of the Agency  (i.e. the 
ratio  between  the  administrative  budget  of  the  Agency  and  the  operational  budget 
managed)  was  above  9%  and  decreased  to  8.7%  in  2016  and  7.2%  in  2017.  In  other 
words, the Agency became more cost-efficient in budgetary terms.  Also, it is important 
to note that some programmes’ management tasks delegated to CHAFEA are not related 
to the operational budget (such as launching calls and evaluation of ‘simple’ programmes 
under AGRI Promotion Programme). 

The  new  mandate  almost  doubled  the  ratio  of  budget  ‘per  head’  in  the  case  of 
CHAFEA47, from EUR 1.36 million in 2013 to an expected EUR 2.49 million in 2020. 
This indicates that each employee of the Agency managed an increasing volume of the 
operational  budget,  which  outpaced  an  increase  in  the  number  of  the  Agency’s  staff 
between  2014  and  2016.  However,  these  efficiency  gains  remain  limited  compared  to 
other  Executive  Agencies.  The  programme  management  cost  of  EASME  is  only  2,6%, 
that of REA 3,6% and that of INEA 0,4%. This difference can be explained by the small 
size of CHAFEA (with an operational budget eight times smaller than the closest other 
Executive Agency).  

Projects managed by CHAFEA are also of a different nature and on average smaller than 
for other Agencies. The number of running projects ‘per head’ is still 4.31 for CHAFEA, 
compared to an average of 8.67 for all other Agencies (10.60 for REA but 2.94 for INEA 
for  example).  However,  the  Agency  started  to  implement  parts  of  the  promotion  of 
agricultural programme only in 2016, hence the findings of the evaluation regarding the 
number  of  projects  managed  under  this  programme  is  limited  to  this  period.  CHAFEA 
also faces particular complexity linked to the diversity of programmes managed as well 
as the nature of the grant attribution and follow-up procedures48.   

A  detailed  analysis  of  the  CHAFEA  cost-efficiency  and  results  of  the  Cost-benefit 
analysis are presented under the point 5.4. 

Over the evaluation period, the Agency has improved its internal mechanism for project 
management  and  implementation  and  introduced  several  simplification  measures, 
which were generally positively perceived by beneficiaries, through: 

the  implementation  of  IT  tools  for  electronic  data  management  and  electronic 
data exchange between the administration and beneficiaries; 

   use  of  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  for  operating  grants  in  Health 
the  consumer 

Programme  and  European  Consumer  Centres’  grants 
programme; 

in 

   simplification of financial management using standard cost option; 
   organisational efficiency & human resource management. 

The  implementation  of  Horizon  2020  IT  systems  by  CHAFEA  has  led  to  the 
simplification of procedures related to grants. In addition, IT systems resulted in savings 
in  human  resources  at  all  programme  management  stages:  evaluation,  award  and 
conclusion  of  grant  agreements,  and  grant  management.  Beneficiaries  of  Joint  Actions 
were  able  to  sign  multilateral  agreements  with  20  or  more  countries  in  a  much  more 
efficient  way.  Nonetheless,  a  certain  level  of  dissatisfaction  was  reported  regarding  the 

47 Ibid, p. 89. 
48 In particular, the grant submission and evaluation process through Sygma/COMPASS varies depending 
on the choice of legal basis, creating further complexity for the Agency.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
administrative burden in cases of small grants and the user-friendliness of the electronic 
systems  used  for  submitting  applications  (only  35%  users  satisfied).  The  Participant 
Portal  and  other  Horizon  2020  tools49  were  also  only  partly  considered  sufficiently 
customised for the programmes administered by CHAFEA50. 

For  expert  management,  the  survey  showed  that  CHAFEA’s  external  experts  assisting 
the evaluation process of the proposals were satisfied with CHAFEA’s performance and 
working  with  the  Agency.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  the  proposal 
evaluation process was smooth and were in general satisfied with most aspects related to 
the  evaluation  process  (quality  of  information  and  assistance  provided  by  CHAFEA, 
clarity  of  the  evaluation  process,  user-friendliness  of  the  IT  systems,  etc.).  Lower 
satisfaction  was  reported  only  in  relation  to  the  amount  of  time  allocated  for  drafting 
evaluation reports. 

For the conclusion of grant agreements, almost all respondents agreed that the CHAFEA 
staff assigned to the grant finalisation phase were easily available and responsive, while 
the  majority  considered  that  requests  from  CHAFEA  for  proposal  modification, 
providing  missing  information  and  other  issues  were  clear.  However,  the  contract 
negotiation  process  was  identified  as  a  potential  point  for  improvement  by  the 
beneficiaries interviewed, in line with the perceived rigidity of the Horizon 2020 IT tools 
in that regard51. Moreover, the implementation of Framework Partnership Agreements for 
operating  grants  in  Health  Programme  and  European  Consumer  Centres’  grants  in  the 
consumer programme allowed for easier grant management (no need for annual calls for 
proposals and subsequent procedures) and facilitated long-term cooperation. Finally, the 
change  in  processes  for  project  supported  under  the  consumer  programme  (use  of 
standard  cost  option  for  the  Exchange  of  Officials)  also  reduced  the  administrative 
burden  both  for  the  beneficiaries  and  for  the  Agency.  The  simplification  of  procedures 
led to higher number of processed applications in 2016, from 60 in 2014, to a total of 92 
applications processed in 201652. 

The Agency’s workload distribution among units in 2014-2016 deviated from the initial 
estimates. The 2016 Annual Activity Report further indicates that the workload of some 
units  further  intensified  in  2016  (ex.  for  the  ‘Promotion  of  agricultural  products’  unit 
following the effective handover early 2016). With the Agency’s relatively small size53, 
unforeseen staff mobility created significant workload variations and business continuity 
challenges.  Even  though  the  number  of  projects  ‘per  head’  can  be  considered  low  in 
CHAFEA as compared to other Executive Agencies, only 30% of CHAFEA’s perceived 
their workload as  acceptable,  against 59% on  average  for other Executive  Agencies.  In 
order to address these challenges, CHAFEA implemented new IT tools54 for improving 
the  working  processes  for  grant  management  and  monitoring.  However,  the  Agency 
should take a more proactive role by working with DG Research and Innovation, notably 
the Common support centre (CSC), which is responsible for the Horizon 2020 IT tools, 

49 Beneficiaries  generally agree that the problems occurred mainly in the initial phases of the 2014-2020 
multiannual financial framework programmes and the situation is currently improving. 
50 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 54. 
51 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 57. 
52 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 65. 
53  CHAFEA’s  size  in  terms  of  staff  numbers  represents  29%  of  the  second-smallest  executive  agency 
INEA, and only 11% of the biggest agency REA. 
54 IT tools for the submission and evaluation of proposals and for the management and monitoring of grant 
agreements, in particular Horizon 2020 IT tools, but also IT tools for workload management. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
to enhance the user-friendliness and functionality of its IT tools and further simplifying 
the administrative provisions of the delegated programmes. 

Overall,  the  Agency’s  consistent  good  performance  on  key  performance  indicators 
suggest  CHAFEA  managed  to  cope  with  fluctuating  workload  levels  (good  results  in 
time-to-grant  indicators,  high  satisfaction  of  beneficiaries  consistently  over  the  period), 
thus  demonstrating  a  high  flexibility,  both  at  operational  and  administrative  levels. 
Through  the  services  provided  to  its  final  beneficiaries,  the  Agency  contributed  to 
increase the efficiency in the implementation of EU programmes, and thus to contribute, 
in  general,  to  the  positive  EU  image  through  a  good  visibility  of  the  Commission’s 
action.  

CHAFEA’s internal organisation and procedures were instrumental for the performance 
of the tasks delegated to the Agency during the reference period. CHAFEA’s HR policy 
reached  some  notable  results:  around  72%  of  CHAFEA  staff  reported  that  their  skills 
match their current job55.  

The  2016  Commission  staff  opinion  survey  however  reported  an  overall  lower  staff 
wellbeing compared to other Executive Agencies, and a decrease in staff engagement56. 
CHAFEA  staff  also  perceived  as  less  good  its  access  to  learning  and  development 
opportunities compared to other Agencies.   

Following  the  results  of  the  survey,  the  Agency  implemented  several  measures  to 
improve its performance in critical areas. It adopted its first multi-annual HR strategy for 
2017-2020 as well as a specific action plan to follow up the survey results, all meant to 
create and maintain a high level of expertise for an optimal and efficient performance of 
the  tasks  entrusted  to  it.  CHAFEA’s  efforts  to  address  its  HR  management  challenges 
were notable  and have positively  contributed to the management  of  the delegated  tasks 
and the objectives of the Agency. Constant efforts will be needed to continue addressing 
the  Agency’s  HR  requirements,  in  particular  the  under-performing  areas  when 
benchmarking against the other Executive Agencies and the Commission. The evolution 
of  key  indicators  for  staff  satisfaction  is  however  encouraging.  In  the  latest  staff 
opinion survey (i.e. from the 4th quarter of 2018)57, CHAFEA managed to increase the 
results of the indicator on well-being to 53%, compared to 38% in 2016. Along the same 
lines, the staff engagement index for 2018 was 63% (against 55% in 2016). 

Staff turnover was relatively stable and constituted 6% on average during the evaluation 
period. The occupation rate maintained the target above in 2015 (96% compared to the 
target of 95%). 

I have the appropriate and timely information to do my work well; 
My colleagues are committed to doing quality work; 
I have a clear understanding of what is expected from me at work; 
I have recently received recognition or praise for good work; 
I feel that my opinion is valued; 
My manager seems to care about me as a person; 
My line manager helps me to identify my training and development needs. 

55 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA, Final Report, Table 7, p. 68. 
56 Staff engagement is measured by the following seven questions: 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
In terms of staff engagement, CHAFEA was ranked among the lowest (at 55%) compared to the averages 
of the Commission and the Executive Agencies (standing at 64% and 66% respectively) in 2016, but has 
made significant progress in the survey of 2018 (index not standing at 63%, up 8 points). 
57 2018 European Commission staff opinion survey. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  management  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  CHAFEA  is  covered  by  its  three 
operational  units,  each  with  its  corresponding  programme:  Health  unit,  Consumers  and 
Food  Safety  unit,  and  Promotion  of  Agricultural  Products  unit.  The  Agency  has  also  a 
fourth horizontal administration unit. The working methods of each operational unit were 
adapted to the specific needs of each programme. In the public health unit, the work was 
organised  according  to  different  policy  areas,  where  it  was  particularly  efficient,  as  it 
allowed  for  increased  specialisation.  In  other  units  the  work  was  grouped  together  by 
funding instruments, which proved especially  useful for  consumer policy as it  afforded 
greater  operational  flexibility.  Moreover,  several  internal  networks  were  set  up  to 
facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  units  with  different  levels  of 
experience and workload.  

The Agency’s relatively small size has obvious consequences on the Agency’s ability to 
take  on  additional  responsibilities,  or  to  maintain  knowledge  and  business  continuity 
when key staff unexpectedly leaves the Agency or changes assignment internally. Along 
the  same  lines,  it  also  has  implications  for  horizontal  functions  (e.g.  HR,  finance,  IT, 
administrative  and  legal  support).  Several  internal  working  groups  have  been  set  up 
within the Agency to ensure the exchange of information and overcome this risk to some 
extent. 

5.3.  Coherence  

Coherence looks at any overlaps and complementarities within the programme portfolio 
managed  by  CHAFEA  or  delimitation  of  responsibilities  between  CHAFEA  and  its 
parent DGs. 

The  Agency  manages  a  diverse  portfolio  of  programmes,  which  are  supervised  by 
different  DGs.  Each  requires  a  certain  degree  of  subject-specific  knowledge,  but  also 
makes use of different forms of financial instruments: Better Training for Safer Food, for 
example,  relies  heavily  on  procurement;  while  the  public  health  and  consumer 
programmes  rely  more  on  grants  and  Joint  Actions.  The  units  are  also  organised 
differently,  with  some  units  organised  according  to  knowledge  of  specific  instruments 
(such as the Agricultural Products Unit) and others according to thematic knowledge of 
specific programmes (such as the Health Unit).  

There  seems  to  be  relatively  little  overlap  between  the  programmes  managed  by 
CHAFEA, both in terms of the area covered and the types of financial instruments used 
for  implementation.  This  triggered  altogether  a  rather  heterogeneous/non  uniform 
organisation of the different units within the Agency. Therefore, more efforts should be 
made  towards  the  achievement  of  a  more  systematic  and  harmonised  management  of 
the programmes. 

In  2014,  CHAFEA  was  entrusted  with  the  promotion  of  agricultural  products 
programme, which included the incorporation of a new unit. This had an impact on the 
overall coherence of CHAFEA’s programmes, with the introduction of tasks that require 
a  certain  degree  of  subject-specific  knowledge.  However,  interviews  suggest  that  this 
process was in general well managed, with the inclusion of Agency staff from other units 
in the new unit.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
inconsistencies  appeared 

In  general,  the  Agency’s  reorganisation  procedures  and  arrangements  brought  by  the 
2014-2020  multiannual  financial  framework  and  the  extended  mandate  worked  well. 
Some 
the  overall  communication  and 
collaboration  procedures  between  the  Agency  and  the  parent  DGs,  which  are  different 
from one unit to the other. Other aspects, such as staff changes within the Commission 
and  the  Agency,  including  the  additional  structural  changes,  affected  the  overall 
coherence of certain programmes58. 

in  relation 

to 

Overall, the Agency has been able to provide timely information when requested and it 
has also made efforts to maintain good communication channels with its parent DGs. A 
clear distribution of tasks and responsibilities between CHAFEA and its parent DGs, as 
presented in the MoU, is summarized in in the table available below59. 

CHAFEA 

PARENT DG 

Implementation level, e.g. 

Political and policy level, e.g. 

- Implementing programmes/initiatives 
- Establishing and implementing the 
control strategy 
- Programme/project implementation 
monitoring 

- Strategy setting 
- Programming, financing decision 
- Programme policy 
monitoring/evaluation 

Communication at programme/project 
implementation level, e.g. 

Communication and coordination at 
policy/programme setting level, e.g. 

- Publicity of the Calls 
- Dissemination of application forms and 
guide for proposers/tenderers 
- Dissemination of action’s results 

- Intra-DG and Cabinet communication 
- Inter-institutional communication 
- Inter-service consultations 
- Dissemination of Programme policy 
results 
- Communication with/to Member 
States, Third Countries 

In general, there seems to be a clear division between the administrative responsibilities 
of  CHAFEA  and  the  policymaking  responsibilities  of  the  Commission.  Some 
uncertainties  existed  concerning  the  role  of  the  Agency  in  the  implementation  of 
administrative tasks related to potentially  highly relevant policy  issues (ex. high-level 
missions  of  the  promotion  of  agricultural  products  programme).  The  MoU  signed 
between CHAFEA and its parent DGs, does not provide a definition of what could be 
classified as highly relevant policy topics. This matter could be addressed by adopting 
clearer provisions and concrete actions in the MoU. 

Other challenges referred to the monitoring of deliverables in Joint Actions. Parent DGs 
duplicate  work  by  controlling  the  quality  of  deliverables  produced  by  CHAFEA60. 
Looking  forward  there  is  potential  for  improving  effectiveness  in  the  operation  of 

58  Coordination  between  the  Commission  and  CHAFEA  proved  to  be  more  difficult  following  the 
reorganisation of certain Directorates-General that led to breaking up the mirror units (e.g. DG JUST). 
59  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive 
Agency  and  DG  Health  and  Food  Safety,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  DG  Justice  and 
Consumers, DG Internal market, Industry, p. 8. 
60 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 33. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
CHAFEA by further simplifying the management of the programmes and strengthening 
collaboration with its parent DGs.  Interviews with parent DGs highlighted the need for 
the Agency to be more involved and dedicated to activities related to the development of 
terms  of  reference,  the  evaluation  of  proposals  and  monitoring  of  project  outputs.  For 
example,  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  procurement  contracts  are  often  drafted  by  the 
parent DGs, which should simply provide a “technical input” according to the MoU. In 
some  cases,  there  is  also  direct  contact  between  contractors  and  Commission  officials 
(ex.  questions  on  technical  content  for  the  BTSF  programme),  where  CHAFEA  should 
have been the contact point.   

As indicated in CHAFEA’s 2016 Annual Work Programme, the Agency’s results in the 
form  of  implementing  the  delegated  programmes  and  carrying  out  studies  are 
contributing to achieving the policy objectives set by the Commission at political level61. 
With respect to grants, “[…]62 the Agency is requested to consult the Parent DG before 
taking appropriate action in cases where possible changes could significantly impact on 
the  programme  objectives  and  have  an  important  policy  impact.”  Concerning 
procurement,  the  Agency  is  responsible  for  implementing  all  procurement  procedures 
delegated  to  it63.  The  management  of  and  the  knowledge  about  a  range  of  financial 
instruments within CHAFEA provides flexibility in choosing the right instrument to meet 
the  specific  needs  of  the  Commission.  This  is  particularly  important  when  there  are 
urgent requests which were not foreseen within the annual work programme64. 

The  Agency  and  its  parent  DGs  used  various  procedures  to  ensure  a  good  interaction, 
coordination  and  information  flows  include  contacts  at  different  levels,  through:  the 
Steering  Committee  meetings  with  all  parent  DGs,  participation  in  the  parent  DGs’ 
management meetings, regular programme-specific meetings, and further contacts at unit 
and working level65.  

Cooperation  mechanisms  worked  well 
in  general.  The  division  of  roles  and 
responsibilities  for  ongoing  coordination  was  set  up  in  the  MoU.  However,  more 
systematic  communication  could  have  avoided  some  overlaps  such  as  the  Agency’s 
intervention  in  the  implementation  of  certain  tasks  that  are  related  to  highly  relevant 
policy topics.  

Formal  coordination  and  exchange  of  information  between  the  Agency  and  its  parent 
DGs takes place through its Steering Committee, at least four times a  year, ensuring in 

61 CHAFEA, Annual Work Programme, p. 6. 
62 MoU, Table 5, p. 24. 
63 (…) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation and its Rules of Application 
and in line with the Vademecum on public procurement in the Commission established by DG Budget as 
well as other specific guidance provided by DG Budget. On request of the Agency and if previously agreed 
between the Agency and parent DG at the stage of the adoption of the work programme, the parent DG will 
provide  input  for  the  preparation  of  the  tender  documents,  in  particular  the  technical  specifications,  the 
criteria  for  technical  and  professional  capacity  and  the  award  criteria  as  well  as  the  filled  in  budget 
template with justification of the allocated amount.” Ibid, Art. 2.2. Procurement, p. 24. 
64  One  example  of  this  was  provided  by  the  BTSF  unit,  who  are  required  to  respond  rapidly  to  disease 
outbreaks  on  the  ground  which  may  not  have  been  foreseen  in  the  annual  work  programme.  The  team’s 
knowledge  of  the  existing  framework  contracts  available  within  the  Agency  and  good  communications 
with their mirror unit in the Commission enabled them to provide alternative possibilities (in this case the 
use of a pre-existing framework contract managed by another team) to quickly procure services in response 
to an outbreak of lumpy skin disease. 
65 MoU, p. 8. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
this way a broad coherence of the overall activities. CHAFEA's activities are monitored 
by the means of participation of the parent DGs in the Steering Committee66. 

At a more informal level, the study found that communication between the Agency and 
Commission colleagues working on the same portfolio is generally going well. A couple 
of  differences  were  noted  in  respect  to  the  organisation  of  the  methods  preferred  for 
communication  and  collaboration.  In  DG  SANTE,  there  are  11  units  working  with 
CHAFEA. Some of these units require meetings  every week, others every  two months, 
others when a problem arises. Agency staff suggested meeting on a more regular basis, 
even  when  (other  more)  formal  meetings  were  not  foreseen.  The  perceived  problem  of 
the  location  of  the  Agency  in  Luxembourg,  seen  as  an  impediment  for  day-to-day 
informal communication, has been partially solved by ensuring regular visits to Brussels 
(from  some  Agency’s  senior  staff  members)  in  order  to  achieve  a  more  efficient 
coordination of activities. 

On top of this, parent DGs were granted access to CHAFEA’s internal project database, 
in order to maintain adequate know-how sharing with the Commission and monitoring of 
ongoing projects. This provided summaries of all projects CHAFEA is managing, as well 
as the tracking of KPIs for each project.  

The Commission found that the information provided is not entirely fit for purpose as it 
is too granular and does not give clear and comprehensive overview of progress towards 
policy  objectives.  Information  made  available  to  the  Commission  was  rather  related  to 
KPIs  at  project  level  and  did  not  necessarily  contribute  to  policy-related  tasks  (see 
assessment question on information and communication). Moreover, the large quantity of 
information  from  the  internal  project  database  is  not  processed  and  analysed  by 
CHAFEA to provide the parent DGs with policy results. In terms of dissemination of the 
results  of  programmes,  interviews  conducted  in  parent  DGs  suggested  CHAFEA  only 
provides limited feedback to inform policymaking. 

Any parent DG may draw up or require the Agency to draw up reports based on data and 
structured  information  available  in  these  IT  systems67.  Finally,  if  provided  for  in  the 
Agency’s  annual  work  programme,  CHAFEA  also  disseminates  the  results  of 
projects/initiatives  in  accordance  with  parent  DG’s  communication  strategies68.  The 
Agency implemented new ways of service delivery to share information and knowledge 
more  easily,  especially  in  relation  to  the  BTSF  initiative69.  However,  interviewed 
officials  in  the  parent  DGs  still  point  out  the  limited  dissemination  of  results  by 
CHAFEA, which could have a larger outreach. 

Seconded  officials  from  the  Commission  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  the  continuous 
exchange  of  institutional  knowledge  between  the  Executive  Agencies  and  the 
Commission.  But  in  this  particular  case,  new  secondments  were  very  limited  (i.e.  only 
two  cases  during  the  evaluation  period,  with  just  one  relevant  case  given  the  previous 

66 MoU, p. 18. 
67 As far as possible, these reports should take the form of automated dashboards with a limited number of 
key performance indicators, Ibid, p. 17. 
68  (...)  based  on  the  Parent  DGs  annual  plan  for  main  communication  actions,  Memorandum  of 
Understanding between the  Consumers, Health,  Agriculture and Food Executive  Agency and DG Health 
and  Food  Safety,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  DG  Justice  and  Consumers,  DG  Internal 
market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - Modalities and Procedures of Interaction, p. 25-26. 
69 CHAFEA made available e-learning modules into the Commission e-environment. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
time of professional experience in DG AGRI). This situation was the result of the legal 
limitations on the ratio of seconded personnel70.  

5.4.  Retrospective Cost-benefit analysis 

CHAFEA’s costs were higher than initially anticipated. The actual costs of the executive 
agency  scenario  were  23%  higher  compared  to  the  initial  cost-benefit  analysis 
estimations71  and  15%  higher  compared  to  the  specific  financial  statement  estimations. 
This primarily resulted from staff related expenditure as CHAFEA’s average staff costs 
were underestimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis: contrary to what was forecasted, 
CHAFEA had higher staff costs compared to other Executive Agencies. The location of 
CHAFEA  in  Luxembourg  means  that  very  few  local  staff  were  recruited,  and  that  the 
number  of  employees  receiving  expatriation  benefits  is  thus  higher  than  for  other 
Agencies72.  

While  the  ex  ante  2013  cost-benefit  analysis  necessarily  relied  on  incomplete  data  and 
extrapolation,  the  2014  specific  financial  statement  estimation  failed  to  update 
CHAFEA’s costs using new data that had become available. If updated costs would have 
been  used  in  the  specific  financial  statement  for  2015-2016,  the  actual  costs  of  the 
executive  agency  scenario  would  have  been  2.5%  lower  than  the  specific  financial 
statement  estimations.  The  specific  financial  statement  indeed  used  CHAFEA’s  2014 
draft  budget  data  to  update  the  (increased)  average  staff  costs  for  that  year,  but  kept 
average  cost  estimations  provided  from  the  2013  cost-benefit  analysis  for  2015-2020, 
where the 2014 data showed that these hypotheses could not be sustained anymore.   

Compared to a situation where the Commission would have performed those tasks within 
its  departments,  CHAFEA’s  costs  were  slightly  lower.  Over  2014-2016  the  actual  cost 
savings  of  the  executive  agency  scenario  were  only  of  1.8%  compared  to  the  in-house 
scenario  while  for  other  Executive  Agencies  savings  can  get  close  to  30%.  Comparing 
the savings initially estimated in the ex ante cost-benefit analysis with the actual savings 
from the delegation of tasks to CHAFEA, the study found that the actual savings during 
2014-2016  period  were  substantially  lower  than  initial  estimations  (EUR  0.4  million 
compared to EUR 4.4 million for the 2013 cost-benefit analysis and EUR 2.3 million for 
the Specific financial statement estimates)73.  

70  The  most  significant  secondments  in  the  evaluation  period  can  be  seen  in  the  newly  created  AGRI 
Promotion  Unit  (however,  even  here,  of  the  two  officials  seconded  from  the  Commission,  only  one  of 
whom had spent a significant amount of time working at DG AGRI previously). The ratio of seconded staff 
within CHAFEA is in accordance with the Guidelines on executive agencies, which limits the number of 
seconded staff (or positions of responsibility) to 33% of temporary staff, or a minimum of 6 staff (if the 
agency  is  particularly  small).  See  Study  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the  operation  of  CHAFEA  (2014-
2016), Final Report, p. 85. 
71 For Title I and Title II expenditure. 
72 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 92. 
73 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 97. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
FIGURE 1. Estimated savings of the executive agency scenario in 2014-2016 (Title I 
and Title II expenditure), EUR 

20.000.000

18.000.000

16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0

18.426.219 

17.322.842 

17.720.239 

17.301.991 

14.036.688 

15.003.303 

4.389.531 

2.319.539 

418.248 

CBA estimations

SFS estimations

Actual

In-house scenario

Executive agency scenario

Estimated savings of EA scenario

Source: compiled by PPMI. 

As  forecasted  in  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  and  the  Specific  financial  statement, 
savings resulting from the creation of CHAFEA came from a higher share of lower cost 
external  personnel  (contract  agents)  employed  within  the  Executive  Agency.  However, 
the actual staff costs of CHAFEA’s temporary and contract agents were higher than what 
had  been  initially  estimated,  based  on  estimated  Commission’s  average  staff  costs  (see 
Figure  2).  This  limited  actual  savings.  CHAFEA’s  infrastructure  and  operating 
expenditure  was  also  higher  than  expected  in  2015-2016  due  to  the  cost  of  rent  being 
higher in Luxembourg compared to Brussels. On the contrary, the costs of coordination 
and monitoring (Programme support expenditure) were in fact 9% lower than the ex ante 
cost-benefit analysis estimates74.  

FIGURE 2. CHAFEA’s average staff and overhead costs 2014-2016, EUR 

INITIAL COST ESTIMATIONS 

ACTUAL COST

75

CBA, SFS for 
2015-2016 

SFS for 2014  2014 

2015 

2016 

Average staff costs: TA  106 294 

129 650 

135 975  134 089  126 203 

Average staff costs: CA  49 672 

71 700 

62 024 

62 691 

64 467 

Overheads 

20 344 

19 150 

19 642 

27 751 

23 065 

Source: compiled by PPMI. 

74 Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of CHAFEA (2014-2016), Final Report, p. 92. 
75 Including professional development and recruitment costs. 

20 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

CHAFEA achieved effective management of the delegated programmes while operating 
according  to  the  legal  framework  governing  it.  For  each  programme  the  Agency  has 
proven to be responsive and flexible to requirements and has timely accommodated most 
of the key related changes. Its objectives in terms of key performance indicators (Time-
to-grant, Time-to-contract, etc.) were attained. Moreover, beneficiaries and experts show 
a large satisfaction with the operation of CHAFEA. In particular, the Agency achieved its 
objectives  in  terms  of proximity to  the  addressees and of visibility of EU programmes. 
During  the  2014-2016  period,  CHAFEA  improved  its  processes  by  adopting  various 
simplification measures and IT tools. 

In terms of efficiency, CHAFEA manages lower amounts of grants and budget per capita 
than  other  Agencies,  implying  higher  programme  management  costs.  The  Agency 
nonetheless managed to reduce its programme management costs from 9% to 7% of the 
total  operational  budget.  The  2013  cost  benefit  analysis  estimated  that  the  creation  of 
CHAFEA would reduce costs by 4.4 million euros over the 2014-2016 period. The actual 
cost of the Agency was higher than initially anticipated and real cost savings through the 
creation of CHAFEA amounted to 0.4 million euros. 

The  staff  opinion  survey  of  2016  had  revealed  lower  than  average  staff  satisfaction 
results  for  CHAFEA  in  areas  such  as  staff  engagement,  staff  wellbeing,  professional 
future and middle management. The Agency has actively addressed these shortcomings 
in  its 2017-2020 multi-annual  HR  strategy  and dedicated survey  follow-up action plan. 
However, the new staff opinion survey  results of 2018 show that the perception of key 
areas of work has significantly improved.  

The  Memorandum  of  understanding  between  CHAFEA  and  its  parent  DGs  set  a  clear 
definition of tasks between the Agency and the Commission, which was overall observed 
over the evaluation period. However, a lack of clarity persists in relation to the Agency’s 
role  in  the  implementation  of  certain  tasks  that  are  notably  related  to  highly  relevant 
policy  topics.  In  spite  of  the  location  of  the  Agency  in  Luxembourg,  which  limits 
informal contacts, communication channels between the Agency and the Commission are 
well established and performing well.  

Finally, a number of ongoing work-streams are already contributing to address the above 
findings of the evaluation. More precisely, an action plan was prepared in order to enable 
the  Agency  to  work  more  efficiently  across  its  objectives  and  programmes.  In 
collaboration  with  the  parent  DGs,  the  actions  are  focused  on  the  simplification  of  the 
management  of  the  programme76,  the  further  improvement  of  its  HR  management,  the 
timely adoption of the annual work programme77 and the proper planning of the activities, 
the  exchange  of  information  and  the  feedback  to  the  parent  DGs  on  the  programme 

76 A Task force on simplification (CHAFEA/parent DGs) was set up in 2018. After the evaluation period 
(2014-2016)  a  number  of  other  actions  were  implemented  by  the  Agency  (e.g.  finalisation  of  guides  for 
users of COMPASS/SIGMA, participation in key user groups and e-tool governance bodies).  
77 The Parent DGs will take measures to ensure that the AWPs  are adopted in a timely manner. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
implementation78,  as  well  as  the  revision  of  the  MoU  to  better  define  roles  and 
responsibilities between the Commission and CHAFEA79. 

78  Further  opportunities  are  explored  to  harmonise  reporting  requirements  across  DGs  and  among 
programmes,  to  ensure  comparability  (e.g.  monitoring/reporting  on  budget  implementation,  on  status  of 
implementation by programme). 
79 A Working Group was set up in January 2019 with the purpose of  (but not limited to) identifying ways 
of flagging projects related to potentially highly relevant policy issues in the annual work programmes (...). 
Kick-off meetings between responsible Project Officers of CHAFEA and Policy Officers of the parent DGs 
are foreseen, in order to (1) agree upon the retro-planning of the procurement procedure; (2) ensure that a 
‘Fiche  de  project’ is ready on time and contains information necessary  for drafting tender specifications; 
(3)  agree  upon  the  scope  of  the  each  party’s  (CHAFEA  and  DG)  contributions  to  the  technical 
specifications.  As  regards  the  high-level  missions  in  the  Agri-promotion  Programme,  the  assessment 
conducted in 2019 concluded on the need for a better delimitation of responsibilities: DG AGRI should be 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  high-level  missions  once  a  new  framework  contract  for  high  level 
missions has been signed by DG AGRI. 

22 

 
                                                           
ANNEX: EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

EFFECTIVENESS  –  to  what  extent  has  the  objective  of  delegating  programme 
management tasks to CHAFEA been achieved?  

   To  what  extent  was  CHAFEA  operating  according  to  the  legal  framework 

establishing it?  

   To what extent has CHAFEA achieved its objectives? What, if anything, could be 

done to render CHAFEA more effective in achieving these objectives?  

   To  what  extent  has  CHAFEA  contributed  to  improved  management  of  the 
programme(s)  in  terms  of  the  elements  assessed  in  the  2013  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis 

EFFICIENCY – to what extent has CHAFEA carried out its tasks efficiently in line 
with estimations?  

   Did the actual costs (including cost of coordination and monitoring) of CHAFEA 
correspond to the estimates of the 2013 Cost-Benefit Analysis which was carried 
out in view of its establishment? If not, what are the reasons behind? 

   Did  the  actual  benefits  correspond  to  the  estimates  of  the  2013  Cost-Benefit 

Analysis? If not, what are the reasons behind? 

   Was  the  management  and  execution  of  the  programme(s)  by  the  Agency  cost-

effective as compared to the alternative options assessed? 

   To  what  extent  has  CHAFEA  contributed  to  improved  management  of  the 
programme(s)  in  terms  of  simplification  of  the  procedures  and  flexibility  in  the 
implementation  of  outsourced  tasks  (e.g.  capacity  to  adapt  to  periods  of  high 
workload)? 

   Which further scope for simplification exists? 
   What aspects/means/actors or processes render CHAFEA more or less efficient? 

What could be improved? 

   To  what  extent  has  CHAFEA’s  internal  organisation  and  procedures  been 

conducive to its efficiency? 

   Is the size of the Agency adequate? Is the balance between operational staff and 

administrative support appropriate? 

COHERENCE 

   Are  there  overlaps/  gaps/  inconsistencies  within  the  programme  portfolio 

managed by the Agency? 

   Is there a clear and appropriate delimitation of responsibilities and tasks between 

CHAFEA and the parent-DGs? Are there overlaps or gaps? 

   To  what  extent  has  CHAFEA  enabled  the  Commission  to  better  focus  on  its 

policy related tasks? 

   Are  there  any  governance  (financial  and  policy)  issues  in  relation  to  the 
implementation  of the tasks  that are delegated to the executive agencies/ 
issues  as  regards  the  Commission’s  services  able  to  steer  EU  policy  or 
budget implementation?   

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Are  appropriate  mechanisms  and  instruments  put  in  place  to  ensure  an 
adequate  coordination  and  information  flow  between  CHAFEA  and  the 
Commission services? 

   Does  CHAFEA  provide  useful  information  in  support  of  the  policy 

process? 

24