COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Contingency plan for ensuring food supply and food security in times of crisis
Date: 2021-11-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, consumer protection, coronavirus disease, crisis management, epidemic, food policy, food resources, food security, foodstuff, security of supply, supply chain

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.11.2021  SWD(2021) 318 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT        Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Contingency plan for ensuring food supply and food security in times of crisis {COM(2021) 689 final} - {SWD(2021) 317 final}  
 
 
RESULTS OF THE TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 
INCLUDING OPEN REPLIES 

The consultation of stakeholders1 is an essential part of the consultation strategy set up for 
the establishment of a contingency plan for food supply and food security in the EU. A 
targeted questionnaire was made available between 1 March and 3 May 2021 in all official 
EU languages. The present report summarises the answers received. 

1. 

Overview of respondents 

The targeted consultation received 253 replies. Individuals provided the highest number of 
contributions  (45%  of  all  respondents),  followed  by  companies  and  trade/business 
associations  (38%  of  respondents)  and  other  users  (17%  of  respondents).  Half  of  the 
contributions  from  the  category  companies  and  trade/business  associations  came  from 
primary  producers  (agriculture  and  fishery/aquaculture)  and  input  providers  taken 
together, the others from other stages of the food supply chain. 

2. 

Questions related to resilience of EU food systems, risks, threats and 
vulnerabilities 

Asked about the overall resilience of the EU food system, many respondents (34%) ranked 
the level of resilience between four and five on a scale from one to five (five being highly 
resilient).  This  percentage  was  even  higher  (59%)  among  companies’  and  trade 
associations’ respondents, thus showing a relative high degree of confidence in the ability 
of the EU food systems to cope with crises. Only 28% of respondents perceive the EU food 
system as being not resilient and even less as not resilient at all (5% of companies and trade 
associations). 

Close  to  60%  of  respondents  identified  climate  change  and  its  consequences  (extreme 
events) as one of the five main threats to the EU food system. Beyond environmental and 
climate risks, health (human, plant and animal) related risks and dependencies on imports 
for  inputs  and  agricultural  commodities  rank  high.  This  is  followed  by  risks  related  to 
access to food and technological vulnerabilities. Disruption to the freedom of movement 
of goods and people, political and geopolitical aspects as well as geophysical catastrophes 
are less perceived as threats. In addition, threats not identified in the questionnaire were 
mentioned under the category ‘others’, i.e. the shrinking of areas devoted to agriculture, 
increasing  environmental  standards  hampering  production  capacity,  increased  ageing 
leading to a reduction in the number of farmers, in particular family farmers. 

1 Already initiated with the publication of a roadmap setting out the issues under consideration (which was 

available December 2020 – January 2021): https://europa.eu/!kX77kj. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Main threats to the EU food system selected by respondents (multiple answers) 

60%

40%

20%

0%

Asked  about  the  vulnerability  of  the  stages  of  the  food  supply  chain,  over  60%  of 
respondents  indicated  primary  production  is  a  vulnerable  stage.  While  input  providing 
activities are also considered vulnerable by half of the respondents, this seems true to a 
lesser extent (25 - 40% of respondents) for trade, transport, logistics and processing. The 
end  points  (retail,  food  services)  of  the  food  supply  chains  are  not  perceived  to  be 
vulnerable (less than 10% of respondents). 

The sectors perceived as most exposed to risks are the fruit and vegetables and the grains 
ones, with over 40% of respondents indicting them as among the most vulnerable. Meat, 
fisheries and inputs (feed and seeds) follow with 25 to 30% of respondents, while sugar, 
olive oil and wine are not perceived  amongst the most vulnerable sectorsby many (less 
than 10% of respondents). 

Figure 2: Sectors perceived as most exposed to threats 

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

Questions related to lessons learned from COVID-19 crisis  

The perception of the resilience of the EU food systems in the early phases of the COVID 
pandemic is not significantly different  from the overall perception reported above, with 
35% of respondents ranking it between four (resilient) to five (highly resilient) on a scale 
of one to five, and 25% not resilient or not resilient at all. 

Looking  closer  at  the  different  aspects  of  EU  food  systems,  the  access  to  personal 
protective  equipment  (85%  of  respondents),  the  management  of  excess  stock  (75%  of 
respondents) and the availability of workers from outside the EU (69% of respondentswere 
perceived as the least resilient areas of the food sector (not resilient or not resilient at all).   

The  availability  of  inputs  (seeds,  feed,  fertilisers,  etc.),  commodities  and  agri-food 
products from within the EU, overall food safety within the EU and availability of access 
to capital and credit, were perceived as predominantly resilient-highly resilient (with 67%, 
59% and 53% of respondents respectively). 

Figure 3: Assessment of the resilience of EU food systems during the COVID pandemic 
in different areas 

The following three measures by public authorities were ranked highest with regard to 
their usefulness (useful or very useful) in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic:  
(i) 
measures  to  protect  the  single  market:  allowing  the  free  movement  of  goods 
(Commission Communication on green lanes), with 54% of all respondents,  

(ii)  measures  to  protect  workers in  the supply  chain (e.g.  availability of protective 

equipment) with 52% of respondents, 

3 

 
 
 
 
(iii) 

 measures to promote short supply chains and/or local or regional food with 48% 
of respondents. 

Other measures were deemed useful like channelling surplus food to donations to avoid 
food waste, ensuring freedom of movement of workers or clear communication as was 
the case on food safety with the Q&As released2. Financial support from Member States 
and the EU, thanks to temporary more flexible rules on State aid, was also considered 
very useful by 38% (MS) and 31% (EU) of respondents, respectively. A small minority 
of respondents found the ban on promotions at retail level useful. 

Figure 4: Assessment of the usefulness of measures by public authorities during COVID 
(% of respondents assessing these as very useful) 

Free movement of goods

Protection of workers

Short supply chains

Food donations

Free movement of workers

Communication (Q&As)

Flexibility in State Aid

Exceptional EU financial support

CFP Funds

Flexibility in trade rules

International cooperation

Ban on promotions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Measures implemented by the private sector were also perceived to be useful (by 40% 
and  more  of  respondents),  such  as  communication  and  information  sharing  through 
business associations, engaging with public authorities on critical supply chain issues, 
cooperation between stakeholders at different stages of the food supply chain and within 
the  same  stage,  use  of  information  technology  for  trading  (for  example,  direct  sales 
online,  or  platforms  to  connect  suppliers  with  excess  food  with  food  banks  or  other 
organisations). 

Respondents pertaining to the categories of companies and trade associations were also 
asked to evaluate the difficulties they faced during the COVID pandemic. Companies and 
trade associations found that both intra-EU and extra-EU trade flows were significantly 
disturbed, with over one fourth of respondents finding that moving goods cross-border, 
intra EU or Extra EU was much more difficult than usually. A larger share of respondents 
found however that moving goods outside the EU (exports and imports) was less affected 
than trade flows within the EU. They identified as other major difficulties the cross border 
movement of workers (particularly with regard to third country workers, such as seasonal 
workers in the agricultural sector), the unexpected costs generated by the sanitary crisis, 
in particular the access to protective material and the disturbance generated by the closure 

2 https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2020-04/biosafety_crisis_covid19_qandas_en.pdf. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
of Horeca activities and related markets. Logistical difficulties (transport) and the need 
for information from public authorities were also mentioned by respondents as having 
represented a significant difficulty but to a lesser extent. Access to inputs and services 
(including information) as well as finding new outlets such as e-commerce, valorisation 
as  non-food  or  donations  to  food  banks  were  less  considered  as  difficulties.  Lack  of 
harmonisation between Member State was not seen as a major issue. 

4. 

Questions related to preparedness and the contingency plan for EU food 
supply and food security  

Companies  and  trade/business  associations  (hereunder  ‘operators’,  38%  of  the  overall 
number  of  respondents)  were  asked  whether  they  had  risk  management  or  contingency 
plans in  place before the pandemic.  Only a third  of operators had contingency plans in 
place before the pandemic. This share was even lower for primary producers (agriculture, 
fisheries), down to 17%. Almost half (45%) of those who had such plans found them useful 
to very useful, while only less than 10% of them found them not useful. 

Figure 5: Share of operators with risk management / contingency plans before the 
COVID pandemic 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes

No

Total

Trade and retail

Primary producers

A  small  majority  of  companies  and  trade  organisations  (53%)  who  answered  to  the 
questionnaire consider they are well to very well prepared for possible disruptions in case 
of  crisis.  However,  there  is  a  difference  between  trade  and  retail  operators  combined 
feeling confident about their level of prepared ness for 57% of them, while only a small 
share of operators in the primary production (agriculture, fisheries) feel prepared (26%). 

The approaches to risk management and contingency planning of operators are likely to 
change after the pandemics, in particular by considering a wider range of risks and threats 
(83% of responding operators), and defining alternative scenarios to sell in case of market 
closures or disruption (71% of responding operators). Promotion of local sales and of on-
line  sales  are  also  mentioned  as  alternative  sales  channels  to  develop.  Plans  B  for  the 
5 

 
 
 
 
purchase of inputs or investment in research and development also attract a majority of 
respondents. Other less favoured approaches with fewer than 30% of responding operators 
concern  purchasing  increased  insurance  coverage  or  joining  collective  structures. 
Accessing to more information is also not evoked by many respondents, but the access to 
market information is considered to be good already. 

Figure 6: Changed risk management approaches of operators post COVID pandemic 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

When asked where they think further action by the EU would be most useful to be better 
prepared,  a  majority  of  all  respondents  (over  60%)  found  it  very  useful  to  “Improve 
coordination  and  communication”.  The  other  proposals  considered  very  useful  by 
operators include information, on crisis developments (48%), on market developments 
(42%)  and  threats  (34%).  This  call  for  more  information  is  felt  even  higher  among 
primary producers. Both enhanced cooperation and coordination and better information 
on  crises  developments  are  the  areas  in  which  respondents  see  the  strongest  need  for 
compulsory  measures  adopted  at  EU  level  (over  70%  of  respondents).  Funding  and 
investments  are  also  found  quite  useful,  for  emergency  purpose  or  for  research  and 
development.  

Enhanced  cooperation  with  the  international  community  and  the  harmonisation  of  the 
approaches  to  threats  within  the  EU  are  also  supported.  The  latter  harmonisation  is 
particularly praised by 60% of operators of the food trade and retail sector (60% assessed 
it very useful).  

Market intervention, promotion campaigns, strengthening labour laws and maintaining 
food donations were found to be relatively less useful by respondents.  

6 

 
 
 
Figure  7:  Usefulness  of  further  action  for  food  supply  and  food  security  and  of 
compulsory EU action 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

very useful

somewhat useful

Not useful

Compulsory

Finally, participants to the targeted questionnaire answered a question on possible items 
that an EU contingency plan to ensure food supply and food security in the EU could 
integrate. Respondents ranked the degree of relevance of a list of proposals on a scale 
from one (not relevant) to five (very relevant). Figure 8 below shows the average note 
for each proposal ranging between 3.2 and 4.3.  

Three topics feature high in the answers. They concern:  

(a)  the  need  for  coordinated  communication  and  information  for  actors  of  the  supply 
chain and for the general public;  

(b) the mapping of vulnerabilities and in particular for the availability of key inputs;  

(c) the availability and protection of workers.  

Other proposals such as a general coordination mechanism, the need to keep the freedom 
of movement of goods and to be flexible in the implementation of rules and policies in 
times of crisis score high. The maintenance of strategic reserves or the monitoring of self-
sufficiency  levels  come  only  after  the  above  mentioned  elements.  Proposals  less 
supported (although still with an average score of three or above, i.e. somewhat relevant) 
refer to international cooperation, coordination of storage capacities or food donations.  

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Average score for items to include in a contingency plan (from 1 not relevant 
to 5 very relevant) 

Communication and information sharing with stakeholders

Availability of critical inputs for the EU food supply chain

Monitoring of threats to food security

Labour force safe working conditions

Communication and information for the general public

EU-level coordinated crisis communication

Freedom of movement of workers within the EU

Flexibility on rules in exceptional circumstances

Freedom of movement of goods within the EU

A coordination mechanism at EU-level

Self-sufficiency targets

Local food systems and short food supply chains

Strategic inputs reserves

Strategic food reserves

Ability to trade food products with the EU’s trade partners

Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies mechanisms

Enhancing food safety

Monitoring of food supplies

Enhanced coordination with the international community

EU-level coordination of storage capacity

Access to workers from outside the EU

EU assistance for coordinating food donations

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5. 

Summary of written contributions by respondents  

Twenty-three respondents (NGOs, civil society groups, government institutions, industry 
representatives from the EU countries and beyond (CH)) accompanied their answers to the 
questionnaire by papers. 

Most contributors support the Commission’s initiative and believe that all active players 
of the food supply chain have an important role to play during times of crisis. 

As regards the process, several replies underline the importance of good  coordination, 
among Member States and EU institutions: 

  create a permanent crisis management forum which could serve as a platform for 
the  delegates  representing  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  all  food  sector 
actors; 

  set up a central contact point to ensure food  crisis  reporting, including in global 

markets; 

  develop specific protocols, for example to identify a food incident versus a food 

crises, on how/when to report for early warning, etc; 

8 

 
 
 
  establish an open digital platform where risk management best practice existing at 

national and EU level can be shared;  

  engage all feed and food chain stakeholders;  
  ensure  that  the  capacity  of  early  detection  and  management  of  food  crises  is 

 

sufficiently developed; 
identify  and  build  a  network  of  crisis  management  expertise  at  sector  level, 
including at international level and in food organisations. 

Some  stakeholders  put  an  emphasis  on  the  crucial  role  of  communication  in  crisis 
management: 

  need for improved science-based communication  from Member States and the EU; 
  need for communication support helpdesk. 

The responses from stakeholders mention many issues that could be considered, the main 
ones being: 

  Functioning of the single market. 

o  Border controls within the Single Market and in ports are seen as a threat 

to food security. 

o  Green  Lanes  for  transport  of  both  food  and  feed  products  are  seen  as 

essential to avoid a food crisis. 

o  Food and feed industry must fall under the category of ‘critical or essential’ 
activities and be subject to exemptions from restrictions to free circulation. 
o  Focus should be given to the transport and logistics stages: food transport 

and haulage has led to delays and increases in transport costs. 

o  More use of digital tools may help border procedures to run more smoothly, 

for example, by allowing electronic copies of certificates. 

  Food supply and inputs issues. 

o  Supporting  manufacturers  to  increase  essential  supplies  of  critical  feed 

additives. 

o  Assuring seed security and seed supply in times of crises. 
o  Substantially increase aquaculture production in the European Union. 
o  Support the shift to more plant-based production for human consumption 

and the development of alternative sources of protein. 

o  Strengthening  of  some  of  the  animal  welfare  provisions  (ensure  the 

continuation of the veterinary care during crises, etc). 

  CAP and other legislative instruments. 

o  Well designed and targeted CAP instruments, a sufficient budget preserved 
from budget, clear triggering mechanism based on objective criteria to be 
defined  and  flexibility  are  the  key  elements  highlighted  by  several 
contributions. 

o  Framework for state aid and the derogations from competition rules, should 

remain temporary. 

9 

 
 
 
 
  Labour issues. 

o  Seasonal  workers and  cross-border workers shall be qualified as ‘critical 

workers’ (ensuring that workers can reach their workplace)3. 

o  Opportunities shall be created to facilitate farmers’ access to an alternative 
workforce, including attracting workers made redundant in other sectors  

o  Provide protective equipment to workers in the supply chain. 

  Transparency. 

o  Ensure  market  transparency  by  providing  timely  market  information  to 

prevent panic buying and build up trust in markets. 

o  Reliable public health information should be provided in a timely manner 

by public authorities such as EFSA, the WHO and ECDC. 

o  Further develop analytical tools capable of identifying potential shortages 

of critical raw materials and perform a vulnerability assessment. 
  The role of international trade, has predominantly been categorized as part of the 
solution to food security rather than a part of the problem, and not only concerning 
food but also providing necessary inputs.  

o  Need for the implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and 

WTO compatible food security stocks. 

o  Importance of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in order to limit 

trade restrictions (e.g. export restrictions) on food. 

Several entities engaged in food packaging have replied and underlined the essential role 
of food packaging. 

Stakeholders are inclined to think that the Contingency Plan must be continually updated 
and it should be adaptable to evolving crises while post-crisis evaluation will be crucial. 

3 Which is already foreseen by the Communication from the Commission Guidelines concerning the exercise 

of the free movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak. 

10