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 Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, the European Research Council Executive Agency, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and the Research Executive Agency
Date: 2025-04-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, consumer, executive agency, farming sector, financial control, foodstuff, performance audit, public health

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.4.2025  SWD(2025) 88 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 Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, the European Research Council Executive Agency, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and the Research Executive Agency                       {COM(2025) 171 final} - {SWD(2025) 87 final} - {SWD(2025) 89 final} - {SWD(2025) 90 final} - {SWD(2025) 91 final} - {SWD(2025) 92 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ................................. 6 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................................. 6 
POINT(S) OF COMPARISON .............................................................................................................. 9 
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 9 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ................. 11 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) .................................................................... 13 

4.1. 
4.2. 

TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ........................................... 13 
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 33 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS- LEARNED? ............................................ 38 

5.1. 
5.2. 

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 38 
LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 44 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .............................................. 46 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION)......................................................................... 51 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ....................................................................... 52 

ANNEX V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHAFEA ....................................................................... 53 

ANNEX VI. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ...................................... 71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

AAR 

AWP 

Agencies 

AGRIP 

BTSF 

CAF 

CBA 

CHAFEA  

CP  

EACEA  

EASME  

Annual activity report 

Annual work programme 

Executive agencies 

The promotion of agriculture products programme 

Better training for safer food 

Common assessment framework 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive 
Agency 

Consumer programme 

European Education and Culture Executive Agency 

Former Executive Agency for Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises  

Commission  

European Commission 

EEA  

EFTA 

EISMEA  

ERCEA  

EU  

European Economic Area 

European Free Trade Association 

European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive 
Agency  

European Research Council Executive Agency 

European Union 

Horizon 2020  

Horizon 2020, the 8th EU framework programme for 
Research and Innovation (2014-2020) 

HaDEA  

Health and Digital Executive Agency 

HP  

HR  

IAS  

Public health programme 

Human resources 

Internal Audit Service 

 
 
INEA  

IT  

PPMI  

REA  

SFS 

SME 

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 

Information technology 

Public Policy Management Institute 

Research Executive Agency 

Specific financial statement 

Small and medium-sized enterprises  

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

The staff working document describes the evidence framework for the evaluation of the 
Consumers  Health  and  Food  Executive  Agency  (‘CHAFEA’  or  the  ‘Agency’) 
implementing  EU  programmes  for  the  period  2017/2018  to  2021.  It  responds  to  the 
requirements set in the Council Regulation (EC) No 58/20031 laying down the need for a 
periodical (every 3 years) evaluation of the operations of the executive agencies. 

In  addition  to  the  Council  Regulation,  the  Agency  was  governed  by  the  Act  of 
Establishment2 which sets out their mandate, the Act of Delegation3 which specifies the 
tasks to be carried out and the powers delegated to agencies to perform their mandate, the 
guidelines for the establishment and operation of agencies4 and the decisions establishing 
the agencies’ steering committees. 

In line with the Commission’s better regulation5 principles, the evaluation applied several 
standard evaluation  criteria. The evaluation assessed whether CHAFEA has fulfilled its 
tasks  in  an  effective  and  efficient  way,  whether  there  were  overlaps,  gaps  or 
inconsistencies in the management of the programme portfolio and whether there was a 
clear  and  coherent  delineation  of  tasks  between  the  executive  agency  and  its  parent 
Directorates-General or other agencies. 

The  evaluation  also  assessed  whether  the  functioning  of  CHAFEA  has  yielded  the 
expected  positive  results  as  estimated  in  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  for  the 
delegation of tasks to the Agency6 and potential areas of improvement. This ex ante cost-
benefit analysis was conducted in 2013 for all the agencies7 for the 2014-2020 EU budget 
(multiannual financial framework). 

The costs and benefits of the selected delegation scenario as initially estimated by the ex 
ante  cost-benefit  analysis  and  the  specific  financial  statement  have  been  further  tested 
within  the  triennial  evaluation  and  compared  with  the  actual  costs  and  benefits  of 
programme  implementation  by  CHAFEA  versus  the  estimated  costs  of  the  in-house 
scenario8. 

The  evaluation  did  not  cover  the  achievements  of  the  programmes  managed  by 
CHAFEA,  which  are  subject  to  separate  evaluations.  The  evaluation  nevertheless 
provided useful input for these programme evaluations, considering that the performance 

1  

2  
3  

4  
5  
6  

in 

the  management  of  Community  programmes,  Official 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 58/2003  of  19 December 2002  laying  down  the  statute  for  agencies  to be  entrusted  with certain 
tasks 
Journal  L  011,  16 January  2003  pp.1-8 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/58/OJ. 
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/770/EU as amended by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/927/EU. 
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. 
Commission Decision C(2014) 9109 final of 2 December 2014. // Annexes to the Commission Decision. 
Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines SWD (2021) 305 final and toolbox. 
Cost-benefit Analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the implementation of Union Programmes 2014- 2020 to the 
agencies - Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 
CHAFEA, EASME, EACEA, ERCEA, REA and INEA. 

7  
8   Management by European Commission services. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of  the  executive  agency  affects  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  programmes  it 
managed. 

The evaluation covers all the tasks carried out by CHAFEA during the reference period, 
from 2017 to March 2021. 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  external  study9  carried  out  by  a  contractor10 
commissioned  by  the  Commission.  The  contractor  assessed  the  six  agencies  following 
the same methodology and intervention logic and the six reports produced are similar in 
terms  of  structure.  The  study  combined  a  retrospective  and  prospective  analysis.  The 
retrospective analysis assessed the operation of each Agency and its performance during 
the  evaluation  period,  while  the  prospective  analysis  suggested  recommendations  for 
improving the performance of agencies going forward. 

The results of this study are summarised in the evaluation. The evaluation is presented to 
the  European  Parliament,  to  the  Council  and  to  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  line  with 
Article 25(1) of the Council Regulation 58/2003. 

According to the cost-benefit analysis carried out in 2013, delegating tasks to CHAFEA 
was  estimated  to  be  more  cost-efficient  than  in-house  scenarios.  The  Act  of 
Establishment estimated that the alignment of more coherent programme portfolios with 
CHAFEA’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. 

A retrospective cost-benefit analysis for the period 2017/2018 to March 2021 was carried 
out  based  on  the  results of  the  2013  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis,  the  assumptions  laid 
down in the specific financial statement and the actual costs of CHAFEA. 

In addition to cost efficiency aspects, the evaluation also covers: 

- 

the  operations  of  CHAFEA  and  their  alignment  to  the  legal  framework 
(Effectiveness). 

-  CHAFEA’s processes, services, and products, as well as the allocation and use of 
their available financial resources. Aspects relating to the key (financial and non-
financial)  performance  results  of  CHAFEA’s  operations,  as  well  as  human 
resources and the organisational structure (Efficiency). 

- 

institutional roles and the delimitation of responsibilities between CHAFEA and 
its  parent  Directorates-General  and  the  instruments  put  in  place  for  effective 
coordination and information flow between these structures as well as the quality 
of the information provided (Coherence). 

9 

10  

https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-supporting-evaluation-chafea-eacea-easme-ercea-inea-rea-2017-2021-final-report-
chafea_en 
PPMI Consortium: Public Policy Management Institute; IDEA Consult. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The evidence framework for the evaluation of CHAFEA draws from the lessons learned 
from  previous  evaluations  and  is  built  in  line  with  the  Commission's  better  regulation 
principles. 

The  outsourcing  of  certain  management  tasks  to  the  six  agencies,  including  CHAFEA, 
according to the Council Regulation 58/2003 and Act of Establishment aims to: 

-  allow the Commission to focus on its institutional tasks, i.e. tasks assigned to the 
institutions  by  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  which 
require  discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into  action.  Such 
institutional tasks should not be outsourced; 

- 

enable  the  Commission  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  delegated  EU 
programmes more effectively and efficiently. 

The original objective of the intervention is to entrust CHAFEA with the implementation 
of several EU programmes in parts or in full. 

During  the  evaluation  period  (January  2017-March  2021),  CHAFEA  implemented  the 
following  four  programmes  that  were  under  responsibility  of  four  parent  Directorates-
General: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the  2014-2020  consumer  programme  (CP),  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and 
Consumers; 
the 2014-2020 public health programme (HP), Directorate-General for Health and 
Food  Safety  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  and  Directorate-General  for  Internal 
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; 
the  food  safety  training  measures  (better  training  for  safer  food  –  BTSF), 
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety; 
the  promotion  of  agriculture  products  programme,  Directorate-General  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development. 

The Agency also implemented the legacy of the previous programmes and actions.  

CHAFEA carried out the following tasks: 

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 line 

with the relevant rules; 

ii)  regarding  programmes,  CHAFEA  is  entrusted  with  the  publication  of  the  calls  for 

proposals and with the selection of projects and actions; 

iii) providing support in programme implementation, in particular: 

6 

 
 
- 

- 

transmitting 

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

the  Commission  all 

information  required 

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  talks;  organising  training;  in  particular, 
organising  Commission’s  own  information  and  promotion  campaigns  for 
agricultural products; 

- 

contributing  to  studies  and evaluations,  in  particular the  annual  and/or mid-term 
evaluation of implementation of the programmes, 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 data supervision; 

-  participating  in  preparatory  work  on  work  programmes  and  financing  decisions; 

managing technical support services. 

CHAFEA's  mission  was  therefore  to  efficiently  manage  the  delegated  programmes.  In 
addition, CHAFEA aimed at successfully meeting the objectives of the programmes, in 
line with the Commission’s priorities and the Directorates-General’s guidance, ultimately 
contributing to the positive perception of the European project. The vision was to further 
develop  CHAFEA  as  a  centre  of  excellence  for  programme  management,  delivering 
meaningful results and a great place to work. Furthermore, the Agency was responsible 
for gathering, analysing and transmitting to the Commission all the information needed 
to guide the implementation of the EU programmes11. 

The intervention logic of CHAFEA closely follows the provisions and logic provided in 
the  key  documents  defining  the  objectives,  tasks,  activities  of  the  Agency.  The 
overall needs  were  derived  from  the  Agency’s  legal  bases  which  defines  the  factors 
against which the needs to establish an executive agency should be assessed. 

Figure 1 summarises the intervention logic of CHAFEA. 

11   Annual activity reports of CHAFEA, 2017-2020. 

7 

 
 
 
Figure 1. CHAFEA’s intervention logic 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

Point(s) of comparison 

The current evaluation of CHAFEA for the period 2017 to 2021 assesses the actual costs 
and benefits of delegating the programmes and having them implemented by the Agency, 
as compared with the alternative scenario in which the programmes are implemented and 
managed by the Commission (in-house scenario). 

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

The  analysis  of  CHAFEA’s  performance  during  the  current  reference  period  assesses 
progress achieved since the previous evaluation which covered the period 2014-201612. 

According  to  the  specific  financial  statement  of  CHAFEA  prepared  in  2013,  the 
estimated  efficiency  gains  was  EUR 7.4  million  over  the  period  2017-2020.  The  total 
number  of  full-time  equivalents  required  to  manage  the  delegated  programmes  in  2020 
was  estimated  at  79.  The  total  initial  operational  budget  of  programmes  delegated  to 
CHAFEA in 2020 was estimated at EUR 199 million in commitment appropriations and 
EUR 177 million in payment appropriations. 

Over the evaluation period, significant efficiency gains were expected, as compared with 
the  in-house  scenario,  which  were  complemented  by  non-quantifiable  benefits  and 
outcomes  such  as  improved  quality  of  programme  management  and  service  delivery, 
improved visibility of the EU programmes and proximity to the beneficiaries and other 
stakeholders. 

2.3  Methodology 

The evaluation was supported by a study carried out by an external contractor. The study 
covered the evaluation of the six executive agencies (INEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, 
CHAFEA and REA) in the period between 2017-2018 and March 2021 in a coordinated 
manner,  based  on  the  same  methodology.  The  study  was  structured  around  a  series  of 
evaluation questions outlined in Annex III. 

An overarching organisational model based on the common assessment framework 2013 
(CAF  2013)13  was  applied  to  understand  the  relationships  between  different  factors  in 
each Agency, based on surveys, interviews with stakeholders and call for evidence which 
gathered information and perspectives on the agencies’ performance. 

The  evaluation  followed  an  evidence-based  and  mixed-methods  approach,  using 
qualitative  and  quantitative  data  to  answer  evaluation  questions.  Triangulation  of  data 
sources strengthened the validity of the findings. 

12   LexUriServ.do (europa.eu) and 

Study  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the  operation  of  the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive  Agency  (2014-
2016) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

13   The  CAF  Resource  Centre  of  the  European  Institute  of  Public  Administration,  CAF  2013:  Improving  Public  Organisations 

through Self-Assessment, p. 9. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The mixed-method approach was used, based on the nature of evaluation questions and 
issues. 

The shifting of programmes among agencies, along with considerable staff mobility that 
took  place  when  the  mandate  of  the  agencies  was  renewed  under  the  2021-2027  EU 
budget  (multiannual  financial  framework)  complicated  the  information  gathering, 
including of programmes and calls data, desk-material and documents, as well as finding 
potential interviewees who managed the related projects between 2017 and 2021. 

The  mixed-method  approach  is  defined  as  the  coordinated  use  of  more  than  one  social 
science paradigm, methodology and/or method in order to improve the understanding of 
the phenomena under investigation. The mixed-method approach connected a: 

-  qualitative approach, based on documentary review and desk research, interviews, 
answers to open-ended survey questions, and a qualitative cost-benefit analysis; 

-  quantitative approach, based on administrative and monitoring data, surveys, and 

a quantitative cost-benefit analysis. 

These  methodological  approaches  to  mixing  methods  were  used  in  a  complementary 
manner,  i.e.  the  results  of  the  quantitative  methods  were  used  to  enhance  the 
understanding of the qualitative results and vice versa. These methods were applied in a 
differentiated manner, according to the nature of the evaluation questions and the issues 
outlined.  While  all  the  questions  and  issues  were  analysed  both  qualitatively  and 
quantitatively, in answering some of the evaluation questions, greater focus was given to 
the qualitative methodological approach, while other questions were addressed primarily 
by relying on quantitative evidence. 

In addition to the overall methodological approach, specific strategies were used for the 
case CHAFEA. 

Methods and data to inform the evaluation of findings covered the followings issues: 

-  documentary review and desk research; 
- 
- 
- 
- 

areas for in-depth study; 
an interview programme; 
a survey programme; 
a cost-benefits analysis. 

Limitations of the methodological approach and findings 

The  evaluation  is  based  on  reliable  evidence  covering  the  three  evaluation  criteria  of 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  in  CHAFEA’s  operations  during  the  evaluation 
period. 

The results and conclusions are limited to the evaluation evidence and findings regarding 
the  business  processes,  management  practices  and  performance  of  CHAFEA,  without 
providing  any  assessment  of 
the  Agency.  The 
implementation  of  these  programmes  and  their  results  has  been  assessed  in  separate 
evaluations. The findings of these evaluations were used in the external study supporting 
the evaluation. 

the  programmes  delegated 

to 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall, the evaluation of CHAFEA provides robust findings built on the triangulation of 
high-quality data collected through a documentary review, desk research, a  cost-benefit 
analysis, stakeholder consultation activities (the survey programme and interviews), and 
an analysis of the in-depth study areas identified in the previous section. 

A number of challenges were encountered that imposed certain limitations on the results 
of the evaluation. First, response rates to the surveys were low, standing at 17% overall 
for  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  (compared  with  23-25%  for  the  previous 
evaluation)  and  39%  for  external  experts  (compared  with  56%  for  the  previous 
evaluation). 

To mitigate the limitations of the survey data, the external study relied strongly on data 
triangulation – i.e. where available, qualitative data were used to support the assessment 
of parameters that had initially been planned as being evaluated (only) quantitatively. 
In addition, due to the nature of the questions involved, the answers to certain evaluation 
questions relied largely  on desk research and interview data. To mitigate this issue, the 
contractor  for  the  external  study  developed  an  extensive  programme  of  interviews 
involving  the  Commission  and  CHAFEA  staff  from  various  levels  of  management  as 
well  as  experts,  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  to  various  programmes 
managed by the Agency. 

Some  limitations  also  relate  to  the  timing  of  the  evaluation  (after  the  closure  of 
CHAFEA). Despite the assistance of HaDEA’s representatives, there were some delays 
in  the  provision  of  data,  and  a  very  small  number  of  cases  in  which  data  were 
inaccessible. Furthermore, the closure of CHAFEA caused a certain loss of institutional 
memory,  which  may  have  negatively  affected  the  ability  of  some  stakeholders  to 
participate  in  the  survey  and  interview  programmes.  Due  to  the  termination  of 
CHAFEA’s activities, some of the prospective evaluation questions were not applicable 
to its evaluation. 

The conclusions and the recommendations proposed by the study were discussed with the 
Agency and its parent Directorates-General. Annex II sets out more detailed information 
on the overall methodology, and specific strategies and limitations. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

This  Chapter  includes  a  general  description  CHAFEA  during  the  evaluation  period, 
including its mission and tasks and any relevant change. 

The COVID-19 pandemic is a common factor that affected the operations of all agencies. 
While  the  agencies  followed  the  Commission’s  guidelines  in  dealing  with  COVID-19 
pandemic,  work  had  to  be  adjusted  in  terms  of  day-to-day  working  arrangements  (e.g. 
digitalisation of the agencies’ processes, telework and remote collaboration) and project 
management  (e.g.  project  extensions  or  suspensions  which  led  to  legal/contractual 
amendments and rescheduling of reviews and payments). CHAFEA mitigated the related 
risks by making adjustments to its operations and working arrangements and succeeded 
to ensure business continuity and to deliver on its related workplans. 

11 

 
 
Towards  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period,  in  addition  to  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes delegated, the executive agency started preparations of the implementation 
of  the2021-2027  EU  budget  (multiannual  financial  framework)  while  adjusting  also  to 
the realities of COVID-19 pandemic. 

CHAFEA  was  created  in  2014  by  Implementing  Decision  No 2014/927/EU14,  which 
broadened  the  competences  previously  entrusted  to  the  Consumers,  Health  and  Food 
Executive  Agency  with  certain  implementation  tasks  on  the  information  provision  and 
promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the  EU  single 
market  and  in  non-EU  countries,  as  well  as  other  Commission  initiatives.  For  the 
evaluation  period,  CHAFEA  was  operating  under  the  legal  framework  governing  the 
agencies and had no amendments of its mandate. 

Overall, CHAFEA was responsible for the management of a wide variety of programmes 
with  specific  objectives,  funding  instruments  and  diverse  types  of  stakeholders  and 
beneficiaries, in particular the consumer programme (CP), the public health programme 
(HP),  food  safety  training  measures  (‘better  training  for  safer  food’  or  BTSF)  and  the 
promotion of agricultural products programme (AGRIP). 

CHAFEA was based in Luxembourg and had its staff increased from 61 in 2017 to 66 in 
2018, 75 in 2019 and 77 in 2020. Its administrative budget was EUR 9.3 million in 2017, 
EUR 10.2 million in 2018, EUR 11.2 million in 2019 and EUR 10.7 million in 2020. 

The total operational budget managed by the Agency increased from EUR 128 million in 
2017  to  EUR 171  million  in  2018,  EUR 186  million  in  2019  and  EUR 179  million  in 
2020. The corresponding ‘budget managed per head’ ratio was EUR 2.1 million in 2017, 
EUR 2.6 million in 2018, EUR 2.5 million in 2019 and EUR 2.3 million in 2020. 

The number of projects increased from 239 in 2017 to 247 in 2018 and decreased to 173 
in 2020. The number of projects ‘per operational head’ significantly decreased during the 
evaluation period by 52%, from 5.01 in 2018 to 2.40 in 2020. 

The  Agency’s  diverse  and  fragmented  portfolio  of  programmes  and  actions  was  in 
contrast  to  those  of  certain  agencies  from  the  research  and  innovation  family,  that 
focused on single funding programmes and achieved scale/efficiency gains by managing 
a very large volume of grant proposals and projects (e.g. REA and ERCEA). In addition, 
there were limited complementarities and synergies among the programmes themselves, 
both in terms of specialised knowledge and forms of delivery. Managing such a diverse 
and  fragmented  portfolio  of  programmes  required  very  different  skills  in  terms  of 
implementation  and  financial  tools  used,  as  well  as  very  specific  thematic  knowledge. 
For  example,  BTSF  and  the  initiatives  under  the  promotion  of  agriculture  products 
programme relied heavily on procurement, the HP relied both on grants and procurement, 
while the CP was mostly employing grants and joint actions. 

CHAFEA  underwent  a  structural  reorganisation  in  2016  to  align  with  the  changes  that 
took  place  in  the  related  structures  of  its  parent  Directorates-General.  This  realignment 
included  the  establishment  of  the  Health  and  Food  Safety  unit  which  consolidated  the 

14   COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 17 December 2014 amending Implementing Decision 2013/770/EU in order 
to transform the ‘Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency’ into the ‘Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive 
Agency. 

12 

 
 
management of health and food safety programmes. Additionally, a new unit was created 
to  handle  consumer,  legal,  and  financial  matters.  The  reorganisation  aimed  to  improve 
communication,  balance  workload,  and  enhance  efficiency  within  CHAFEA.  These 
changes  were  finalised  in  2018  and  aimed  to  better  align  CHAFEA  with  its  parent 
Directorates-General and their respective responsibilities. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

Section  4  reports  on  the  main  study  findings  relating  to  the  evaluation  criteria  of 
effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the executive agency. 

Effectiveness relates to how successful the Agency has been in achieving or progressing 
towards its objectives. Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used 
by  the  Agency  and  the  output.  Coherence  looks  at  any  overlaps  and  complementarities 
within 
the  Agency  or  delimitation  of 
responsibilities between the Agency and its parent Directorates-General. 

the  programme  portfolio  managed  by 

Overall,  during  the  evaluation  period  CHAFEA  effectively  and  efficiently  met  its 
mission  and  objectives  within  the  existing  regulatory  and  operational  framework.  The 
Agency was however responsible for the management of a broad variety of programmes 
within  a  diverse  and  fragmented  portfolio,  which  limited  economies  of  scale  in 
programme  management  and  made  it  difficult  for  it  to  exploit  synergies  and 
complementarities among them. 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 

CHAFEA  operated  in  line  with  the  legal  framework  that  established  it  and  aligned  its 
activities effectively with its mandate during the evaluation period. 

Two main Commission Decisions remained the basis for its governance in 2017-2021: 

-  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2013/770/EU  of  17 December  2013 
establishing the Executive Agency for Consumers, Health and Food and repealing 
Decision  2004/858/EC  as  amended  by  Commission  Decision  2014/927/EU  of 
17 December 201415; and 

-  Commission Decision C(2013) 9505 of 20 December 2013 delegating powers to 
the  Consumers,  Health  and  Food  Executive  Agency  with  a  view  to  the 
performance  of  tasks  linked  to  the  implementation  of  Union  programmes  in  the 
field of consumers, health, and food comprising, in particular, implementation of 
appropriations  entered  in  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  as  amended  by  the 
subsequent decisions C (2014) 9594 and C (2015) 2856. 

15   Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  of  17 December  2014  amending  Implementing  Decision  2013/770/EU  in  order  to 
transform the ‘Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency’ into the ‘Consumers,  Health, Agriculture and Food Executive 
Agency’ (2014/927/EU). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
During  the  2017-2021  period,  CHAFEA  continued  to  implement  the  HP,  the  CP,  the 
BTSF (2014-2020), and the AGRIP (2016-2020). The Agency contributed effectively to 
the achievement of the programmes’ objectives. 

According  to  the  annual  activity  reports  (AARs),  the  Agency  also  supported  the 
Commission in other activities detailed in the work programmes agreed by all parties. 

Adaptability and flexibility 

Further  to  the  reorganisation  of  the  Commission which  took  effect  on  1 February  2016 
through which the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection was reorganised 
into  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety,  and  the  consumer  programme, 
managed  by  CHAFEA,  was  transferred  to  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and 
Consumers,  CHAFEA  introduced  a  new  organisational  structure  to  adapt  to  these 
changes and to align with the structure of its parent Directorates-General. 

As a result, the Health and Food Safety unit was established to manage two programmes 
under the remit of Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, namely, the HP and 
the BTSF (which was previously managed in combination with the CP). This improved 
programme management and allowed efficiency gains. In addition to this, the Consumer, 
Legal and Financial Issues unit was established. 

According  to  interviews  of  parent  Directorates-General  representatives,  the  new 
organisational  structure  was  evaluated  positively  in  terms  of  streamlining  interactions 
between the Agency and its parent Directorates-General. It allowed the Agency to better 
respond to  and track the needs of its parent  Directorates-General, as well as improving 
communication. Furthermore, it contributed to better workload balance across the units. 

The outbreak in 2020 of a global COVID-19 pandemic posed a major public health threat 
and socio-economic challenge across Europe. As a result of the changes brought about by 
COVID-19,  CHAFEA  not  only  had  to  adapt  its  operations  (budget,  working  methods), 
but  also  its  programme management, as  the programmes managed by the Agency were 
especially  pertinent  to  the  situation.  Despite  the  difficult  situation,  the  Agency 
demonstrated  overall  flexibility  and  successfully  adjusted  both  its  programme  and 
internal management to meet the challenges of COVID-19. 

In terms of programme management, in cooperation with its parent Directorates-General, 
in particular with Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, CHAFEA reallocated 
resources  and  opened  new  funding  instruments  to  support  the  design  and  execution  of 
COVID-19  mitigation  measures.  For  example,  joint  actions  in  health  security  were 
steered,  in  collaboration  with  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety,  to 
combating  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  These  included  healthy  gateways,  in  which 
CHAFEA assisted Member States in strengthening their capacity to combat cross-border 
health  threats.  Furthermore,  the  joint  action  on  the  strengthened  international  health 
regulations  and  preparedness  initiative  was  launched  to  ensure  quality  control  and 
capacity building for precise diagnostics during the early stages of the pandemic16. 

16   CHAFEA, Annual Activity Reports, 2019-2020. 

14 

 
 
Another indication of CHAFEA’s flexibility is reflected in the special calls for proposals 
it  launched.  Two  calls  were  launched  on  behalf  of  Directorate-General  for  Health  and 
Food  Safety,  funded  under  the  emergency  support  instrument.  One  of  these  concerned 
support  for  blood  establishments  to  deliver  convalescent  plasma-based  therapies.  The 
other  concerned  the  screening  of  medicines  to  treat  COVID-19.  At  the  same  time,  to 
respond to market disturbance in several agricultural sectors (fresh fruit and vegetables, 
dairy products,  wine, horticultural products, potatoes for processing), CHAFEA opened 
two  further  (crisis)  calls  for  proposals  (EUR 5  million  per  call)  in  cooperation  with 
Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development17.  In  terms  of  BTSF 
measures,  CHAFEA’s  AARs  and  interviews  with  former  Agency  staff  both  noted  the 
increasing prevalence of e-learning modules during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Also,  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  CHAFEA  adapted  many  of  its  running 
grants  and  service  contracts  to  accommodate  remote  ways  of  providing  expected 
deliverables,  through  the  signing  of  more  than  20  amendments18.  The  digitalisation  of 
procurement procedures provided the opportunity to continue operating smoothly during 
the pandemic. 

However, grants  and contracts  signed before COVID-19 posed a  challenge. To address 
this  issue,  CHAFEA  prepared  guidelines  for  beneficiaries  and  contractors,  at  the  same 
time respecting the legal framework. The effectiveness of these measures is reflected in 
the fact that 94% of beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants confirmed that CHAFEA 
demonstrated  flexibility  towards  them  by  adjusting/extending  deadlines  or  agreeing  to 
other changes to the project that were necessary because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Interviews with beneficiaries and external experts confirmed that, in general, COVID-19 
had  no  significant  impact  on  the  implementation  of  their  projects/tasks,  due  to  the 
effective  support  they  received  from  CHAFEA.  For  example,  CHAFEA  assisted 
beneficiaries  in  relocating  funds  as  a  result  of  pandemic-related  changes.  Meanwhile, 
interviews  with  external  experts  reported  that  the  COVID-19  period  was  not  only 
handled  successfully,  but  also 
the  groundwork  for  better  post-pandemic 
arrangements.  Following  COVID-19,  external  experts  continued  to  work  remotely 
online, which was considered a better practice than spending a week in Luxembourg for 
experts who typically also have full-time jobs. 

laid 

On  internal  management,  CHAFEA  successfully  adapted  its  business  processes  to 
respond  to  new  conditions.  It  had  adopted  workflows  to  be  used  in  the  event  of  a 
pandemic  and  issued  guidance  for  the  staff  on  when  and  how  to  use  these  adjusted 
workflows. 

On  Brexit,  CHAFEA  identified  transactions  that  were  likely  to  be  affected  by  this 
change,  and  began  preparing  in  2019,  in  cooperation  with  parent  Directorates-General 
and  other  Commission  departments.  In  2020,  following  the  implementation  of  the  EU-
UK Withdrawal Agreement, the Agency carried out corresponding changes to the tasks 
under  its  responsibility.  For  example,  the  CHAFEA  website  was  updated  in  line  with 
instructions  from  the  Directorate-General  for  Communication  (DG  COMM)  while 

17   CHAFEA, Annual Activity Report 2020. 
18   CHAFEA, Annual Activity Report 2020. 

15 

 
 
specific  disclaimers  were  added  to  calls  for  proposals  launched  during  this  period.  In 
addition,  CHAFEA  adjusted  its  programme  management  activities  to  the  new 
circumstances.  Accordingly,  in  2020  the  BTSF  initiative  included  training  for  82 
Northern  Ireland  authorities  on  the  new  rules  in  preparation  for  the  Brexit  situation19. 
Despite  the  high  level  of  uncertainty  in  terms  of  cooperation  with  EU  institutions  and 
partners  caused  by  Brexit,  CHAFEA  was  flexible  and  supportive,  allowing  for  a 
successful completion of the relevant projects. 

Transition from CHAFEA to successor executive agencies 

In the context of the delegation of EU 2021-2027 programmes to agencies and building 
on the results of the cost-benefit analysis, on 29 April 2020 the Commission proposed the 
winding up of CHAFEA and transfer its tasks to Brussels-based agencies from 1 January 
2021.  On  11 November  2020,  this  approach  was  confirmed  by  the  College  of 
Commissioners,  but  the  date  of  winding  up  was  deferred  to  31 March  2021.  CHAFEA 
was therefore the first Agency to be wound up. 

The  decision  to  transfer  the  tasks  of  CHAFEA  to  other  agencies  while  creating  a  new 
agency  dedicated  to  health  and  digital  programmes  was  aimed  at  developing  more 
coherent  agency  portfolios,  increasing  the  size  of  all  agencies,  as  well  as  creating  the 
possibility  to  develop  synergies  across  agencies.  According  to  the  Commission’s 
Communication20, the size of CHAFEA was sub-optimal, its staff costs were higher than 
those of its Brussels-based counterparts, and its portfolio was fragmented. 

Further  to  the  decision  to  wind  up  the  Agency,  it  was  necessary  to  implement  the 
transition  from  CHAFEA  to  successor  agencies  within  a  short  period  of  time,  while 
ensuring  the  efficient  implementation  of  existing  programmes.  In  addition,  it  was 
necessary to  implement this transition  during the COVID-19 pandemic, at  a time when 
CHAFEA  also  needed  to  adopt  safety  measures,  to  adapt  its  working  processes  and  to 
introduce  teleworking  for  all  of  its  staff.  Furthermore,  there  was  uncertainty  about  the 
organisation of such a complex transition. Therefore, consultations were carried out with 
the  Commission's  internal  departments,  Directorate-General  for  Human  Resources  and 
Security,  the  Secretariat-General,  Directorate-General  for  Budget  and  the  individual 
successor agencies, on how to make the transition easier. 

Despite  some  staff  turnover  during  the  transition  process  (more  than  20  staff  left  the 
Agency  in  2020),  new  staff  were  recruited  to  execute  ongoing  tasks,  and  the  staff  of 
CHAFEA showed high engagement and commitment during the transition process. The 
fact that certain members of the Agency’s staff were recruited by the Directorate-General 
for  Health  and  Food  Safety  units  based  in  Luxembourg  reduced  the  loss  of  the 
accumulated knowledge. The transition process was facilitated by the use of common IT 
systems  and  tools  (e.g.  eGrants)  in  CHAFEA  and  its  successor  agencies,  with  former 
CHAFEA  staff  being  able  to  use  the  same  tools  in  the  successor  agencies. 
Representatives  of  the  Agency’s  parent  Directorates-General  highlighted  the  smooth 

19   CHAFEA, Annual Activity Report 2020. 
20   COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION: Delegation of the management of the 2021-2027 EU programmes to executive 

agencies C(2021)946 final. 

16 

 
 
implementation of programmes, and the business continuity that was ensured during the 
transition process. 

Effective implementation of the delegated programmes 

CHAFEA  effectively  aligned  its  objectives  with  those  outlined  in  the  legislative  and 
strategic  framework,  as  well  as  with  those  of  its  parent  Directorates-General.  It  also 
mostly achieved its intended outputs (key performance indicators). 

Key stakeholders (parent Directorates-General, beneficiaries, unsuccessful applicants and 
external experts) were generally satisfied with CHAFEA’s performance. Representatives 
from  the  Agency’s  parent  Directorates-General  emphasised  its  flexibility  towards  grant 
and  procurement  management,  while  the  survey  revealed  higher  levels  of  satisfaction 
among beneficiaries and external experts (compared with the previous evaluation). 

CHAFEA also initiated and implemented a number of innovative management practices, 
including the development of a manual of procedures, the compass tool for eGrants, the 
PM2  project  management  methodology,  guidelines  for 
implementation  of 
promotional activities with Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, 
and the ‘evaluation of evaluations’. 

the 

CHAFEA's  mission  was  to  efficiently  manage  the  four  programmes  and  successfully 
meet their objectives, while its strategic objective was to further develop the Agency as a 
centre of excellence for programme management21. The study supporting the evaluation 
revealed  that  these  objectives  were  successfully  achieved.  At  the  same  time,  there  was 
scope for further improvement in organisational procedures and activities. 

During  the  evaluation  period,  CHAFEA  supported  its  parent  Directorates-General  in 
achieving  their  policy  objectives  by  addressing  several  policy  objectives  of  the  parent 
Directorates-General.  The  evaluations  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  CHAFEA22  and 
the  annual  reports  of  parent  Directorates-General  confirm  that  CHAFEA  effectively 
supported the implementation of these objectives. 

For  instance,  the  annual  reports  of  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety 
highlighted  that  CHAFEA’s  expertise  helped  to  orient  projects  towards  results  that 
reflected the original intent of the policy. As stated, the policy objectives were achieved 
thanks to close collaboration between CHAFEA and Directorate-General for Health and 
Food  Safety,  and  a  high  level  of  flexibility,  within  the  limits  of  the  EU  Financial 
Regulation23. 

Representatives  of  parent  Directorates-General  emphasised  CHAFEA’s  contribution  to 
EU policy goals and the Commission’s priorities. In addition, interviewees suggested that 
the Agency demonstrated excellence in terms of project and programme management by 

21   CHAFEA, 2017-2020 annual work programmes. 
22   European Commission (2019), Commission Staff Working document, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid-term evaluation of the 
Consumer  Programme  2014-2020  {SWD(2019)  382  final};  European  Commission  (2017),  Commission  Staff  Working 
document,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  third  Health  Programme  2014-2020 
{SWD(2017) 333 final}. 

23   Directorate-General for Health & Food Safety, 2017-2021 annual activity reports. 

17 

 
 
implementing  projects  within  time  limits  and  according  to  the  relevant  rules,  and  by 
appropriately disseminating information. 

However,  from  the  parent  Directorates-General’  point  of  view,  the  management  of 
procurement  activities  could  have  been  further  improved  through  the  establishment  of 
tailored key performance indicators and by reconsidering resource allocation. 

The  study  supporting  the  evaluation  also  revealed  that  CHAFEA-managed  to  mostly 
produce its intended outputs and results. 

The  percentage  of  successfully  concluded  calls  varied  between  90%  and  100%,  with 
specific exceptions, such as 75% of calls planned within the CP being launched in 2018. 
On procurement, most of the planned procedures were implemented, and only a few  of 
them  were  cancelled.  There  were  two  key  reasons  for  the  cancellation  of  procedures, 
namely,  a  change  of  policy  priorities  or  a  lack  of  adequate  offers  from  the  framework 
contractors. 

indicators: 

time-to-inform, 

To  achieve  its  operational  results,  the  Agency  has  set  a  100%  target  for  all  key 
performance 
time-to-pay.  Overall, 
CHAFEA met the targets for these indicators, with minor deviations. Time-to-inform and 
time-to-grant  indicators  were  mostly  within  the  target,  except  for  a  few  specific  cases 
(e.g. time-to-inform and  time-to-grant were exceeded for the HP in 2017).  Time-to-pay 
was  noted  as  an  issue  and  was  addressed  using  corrective  measures  (e.g.  simplified 
financial circuits, active monitoring, and a warning system at unit and corporate level). 

time-to-grant  and 

The  study  showed  that  all  key  stakeholders  (parent  Directorates-General,  beneficiaries, 
unsuccessful  applicants  and  external  experts)  were  generally  satisfied  with  the 
performance of CHAFEA. Representatives from parent Directorates-General emphasised 
the Agency’s flexibility in grant and procurement management while the survey results 
revealed higher levels of satisfaction among beneficiaries and external experts compared 
with the results of the previous evaluation. 

To  achieve  its  goals,  the  Agency  introduced  a  number  of  innovative  management 
practices that contributed to its overall effectiveness and efficiency. 

To  standardise  procedures  for  CHAFEA’s  four  programmes,  the  Agency  developed  a 
manual  of  procedures,  which  mapped  out  all  relevant  actions,  including  financial 
management, procurement, HR and legal procedures. This manual was found useful by 
interviewed Agency’s staff members and was later adapted by successor agencies. 

In addition, CHAFEA continuously worked on further simplifying its tasks. The compass 
tool  for  eGrants  contributed  to  significant  simplification  of  grant  implementation.  This 
tool,  which  enabled  the  transition  from  paper  to  electronic  procedures,  increased 
CHAFEA’s efficiency and effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Agency started developing 
project management expertise as part of its mission to become a centre of excellence. The 
Agency’s  application  of  PM²  project  management  methodology  was  highlighted  as  a 
good practice throughout the interviews. 

One  of  the  innovative  practices  implemented  in  the  Agency  was  the  ‘evaluation  of 
evaluations’. External expert evaluations of CHAFEA actions were further evaluated, i.e. 
another  expert  would  examine  how  they  had  been  evaluated,  to  learn  where  the 

18 

 
evaluation  may,  in  some  instances,  have  failed  and  to  assess  the  evaluators’  quality. 
However, this practice was discontinued in the final year of CHAFEA. 

Communication function of the Agency and feedback to policy to parent Directorates-
General 

The  communication  function  of  CHAFEA  effectively  supported  CHAFEAs  mission  of 
efficiently  managing  the  delegated  programmes  and  meeting  their  objectives.  The 
Agency  met  (and  occasionally  exceeded)  its  communication  targets.  Most  beneficiaries 
and external experts were satisfied with communication and interactions with CHAFEA. 
Beneficiaries  regarded  email,  video  conferences  and  phone  contact  as  the  most  useful 
communication  channels  while  experts  were  most  satisfied  with  the  information  from 
online  manuals  and  reference  materials.  An  appropriate  feedback  loop  was  maintained 
between  CHAFEA  and  the  parent  Directorates-General  via  several  channels  (meetings, 
emails, project database, etc.).  

As set out in its legal basis, CHAFEA communicated all the information necessary to and 
resulting from the execution of its delegated programmes. Improving communication and 
dissemination  activities  was  defined  as  one  of  CHAFEA’s  objectives24.  Because  they 
share  responsibility  for  being  a  reliable  source  of  information  for  stakeholders,  the 
Agency  and  the  parent  Directorates-General  collaborated  in  the  implementation  of 
communication and dissemination activities. 

its  own  dissemination/communication  activities.  The  Agency  met 

CHAFEA relied on the communication strategies of its parent Directorates-General when 
planning 
its 
communication  objectives  and  targets  during  the  evaluation  period.  These  targets  were 
even occasionally exceeded (e.g. in 2020, 36 publications were published instead of the 
12  planned).  CHAFEA’s  communication  and  dissemination  activities  were  primarily 
aimed at supporting the goal of communicating all information required for and resulting 
from programme management. 

The communication activities of the Agency targeted the programmes’ stakeholders, but 
the actions and contents were also available to the general public. 

The  percentage  of  Europeans  who  held  a  positive  image  of  the  EU  was  one  of 
CHAFEA’s  communication  indicators.  CHAFEA,  along  with  other  agencies,  aimed  to 
contribute to improving the EU’s image among the European public. 

Furthermore,  special  attention  was  paid  to  broadening  the  reach  of  the  Agency’s 
programmes  to  new  potential  applicants.  Interviews  with  all  categories  of  respondents 
confirmed  that  CHAFEA’s  external  communication  was  effective  regarding  this 
objective. 

CHAFEA  also  aimed  to  increase  application  rates  from  Eastern  European  countries. 
However, the Agency’s success in reaching out to potential participants relied heavily on 
ministries in Member States, which served as contact points. This objective was overall 
partly achieved. 

Overall, CHAFEA published fact sheets, brochures and reports presenting the effects of 
EU actions. In addition, the CHAFEA website was updated in 2018 to make it more user-

24   CHAFEA, Annual Work Programmes 2017-2020. 

19 

 
 
 
friendly25  The  key  groups  of  stakeholders  (beneficiaries,  unsuccessful  applicants  and 
external experts) considered CHAFEA-managed programmes as well promoted. 

As  set  out  in  CHAFEA’s  legal  basis,  the  Agency  was  responsible  for  gathering, 
analysing  and  transmitting  to  the  Commission  all  the  information  needed  to  guide  the 
implementation  of  EU  programmes26,  which  made  external  communication  with 
Directorates-General  an  important  part  of  its  activities.  Evidence  collected  during  the 
external  study  shows  that  there  was  adequate  feedback  to  policy  provided  to 
Directorates-General. CHAFEA established several mechanisms to inform policymaking, 
which  varied  according  to  the  specific  programmes/teams.  These  mechanisms  were 
mostly set up within the framework established in the memorandum of understanding. At 
Agency level, there were yearly meetings with all parent Directorates-General, at which 
CHAFEA reported on its achievements. CHAFEA provided feedback to policy to parent 
Directorates-General for the preparation of the work programmes, which was considered 
in the light of Commission priorities and policy direction.   

The  specific  mechanisms  and  instruments  put  in  place  by  the  Agency  to  inform 
policymaking on the results of the programmes and other tasks delegated to the Agency 
are as follows: 

Mechanisms and instruments 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

  Meetings between programme teams and representatives of parent Directorates-General 

  Common meetings with beneficiaries and info days  

  Calls and emails  

  Annual reports 

  Conclusion reports (health programme) 

  Project database (health programme) 

  OMEGA IT tool  

Some  of  these  mechanisms  and  tools  (e.g.  annual  reports)  were  shared  by  all 
programmes. However, the implementation arrangements for others differed according to 
their  programme  teams  and  parent  Directorates-General.  For  example,  meetings  were 
held  monthly  for  some  teams  (health  team,  consumers  team),  but  twice  a  month  for 
others  (AGRIP).  Similarly,  calls  and  email  exchanges  with  Directorate-General  for 
Health  and  Food  Safety  for  the  BTSF  team  occurred  daily.  Moreover,  there  were 
programme-specific  tools  that  allowed  the  efficient  exchange  of  data,  related  to 
programmes. For instance, the health team’s project database was mentioned as a useful 
way  to  transfer  project  results  into  policymaking.  Furthermore,  CHAFEA  and 
Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  collaborated  on  the 
development of the IT tool OMEGA to facilitate information exchange and programme 
management.  OMEGA  allowed  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  to  do  exports  and  downloads  directly  from  the  database,  as  well  as  to 
conduct  research  without  relying  entirely  on  employees  from  CHAFEA.  Conclusion 
reports written after each action (for HP) provided the basis for  feedback to policy that 
was based on experiences with project implementation. These documents contained the 

25   CHAFEA, Annual Activity Report, 2018. 
26   Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with 

certain tasks in the management of Community programmes, Article 6 (2) (c). 

20 

 
 
 
main findings of projects and were regularly shared with Directorate-General for Health 
and Food Safety. 

4.1.2.  Efficiency 

Financial management and HR policy 

The  management  of  CHAFEA’s  delegated  programmes  provided  reasonable  assurance 
that  suitable  controls  were  in  place  and  working  as  intended,  and  the  overall  control 
framework  was  updated  if  the  Commission  requested  it.  Risks  relating  to  legality  and 
regularity  of  the  underlying  transactions  were  adequately  managed,  and  activities  were 
flexibly adjusted in response to changes in the framework. The Agency implemented its 
programmes using sound financial and human resource management (by operating in line 
with the Financial Regulation and consistently aligning its HR policy with the one of the 
Commission). 

The Agency’s  activities  complied with  the  Financial Regulation,  which  was updated in 
2018  to  steer  the  operations  of  the  Commission  and  its  agencies  towards  the  new  EU 
budget  (multiannual  financial  framework).  The  Financial  Regulation  required  that  the 
organisational structure and the internal control systems used for the implementation of 
the EU budget were set up in line with standards/principles. 

CHAFEA  assessed  its  internal  control  systems  during  the  evaluation  period  and 
concluded that the internal control standards/principles had been implemented and were 
functioning  as  intended27.  Furthermore,  the  Agency  systematically  examined  the 
available control results and indicators, as well as the observations and recommendations 
issued by internal auditors and by the European Court of Auditors. 

On HR, CHAFEA continued to implement its HR policy with the main goal of creating 
and maintaining a high level of expertise for the optimal and efficient performance of the 
tasks with which it was entrusted. 

In  2016  CHAFEA,  adopted  a  new  multiannual  2017-2020  HR  strategy  aiming  to 
improve  CHAFEA’s  performance  in  areas  in  which  the  Agency’s  performance  was 
below the average for the Commission and its  agencies. The HR strategy was followed 
by an action plan developed in 2017, which focused on:  

•  career development and talent management;  

• 

the development of staff skills;  

•  performance and excellence;  

•  well-being at work; and  

•  collaborative skills and corporate culture.  

According  to  this  action  plan,  CHAFEA  defined  a  goal  to  create  more  synergies  with 
other agencies in HR matters. 
Out  of  the  34  actions  listed  in  the  2019  action  plan28,  20  were  finalised  by  the  end  of 
2019,  and  most  of  the  other  actions  were  well  advanced  and  being  implemented  on  a 
recurrent basis at the beginning of 202029. 

27   CHAFEA, 2018 annual activity report. 
28   During  2019  some  more  actions  were  added  to  the  existing  plan  to  take  into  account  the  results  of  the  Staff  Survey  and  the 

recommendations of the Health, Safety and Security Committee. 

21 

 
 
Efficiency of the management and execution of programmes 

i)  CHAFEA  worked  efficiently  on  its  evaluation  and  grant  management  processes. 
Overall,  time-to-inform  and  time-to-grant  improved  during  the  evaluation  period. 
The Agency adopted a risk-based control strategy regarding the payment of grants, 
which  allowed  the  average  time-to-pay  to  remain  well  below  the  contractual 
threshold for all types of payments. 

Based  on  the  findings  from  the  study  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the  Agency, 
CHAFEA’s  performance  on  call  management  –  from  the  opening  of  a  call  to  the 
finishing  of  all  administrative  and  preparation  tasks  –  was  both  high  and  stable.  The 
Agency managed to inform beneficiaries in a timely manner, efficiently concluded grant 
agreements/contracts within the legal deadlines and executed payments much faster than 
the contractual thresholds for all types of payments. Overall, as summarised in  Table 1 
below, CHAFEA was successful in achieving its deadline targets for all programmes. 

the 

The organisational changes (e.g. the adoption of a new organisational structure in 2018), 
and 
simplified  and  digitised  application  and 
grant/procurement  management  procedures,  were  instrumental  for  the  Agency  to 
improve the achievement of its key performance indicators. 

further  development  of 

The  following  deadlines  for  the  execution  of  call  management  tasks  and  their  subtasks 
applied during the evaluation period: 

- 

- 

- 

time-to-inform,  which  is  the  time  from  the  closing  of  a  call  to  informing  the 
applicants of the outcome of a scientific evaluation of their application, was set at 
6 months; 
time-to-grant,  which  is  the  time  within  which  the  Agency  was  required  to  sign 
grant  agreements  with  applicants  or notify them of grant  decisions, was  set  at  9 
months; 
time-to-pay,  which  is  the  deadline  set  for  the  Agency  from  when  it  receives  a 
request for payment to when it executes the payment. This varied according to the 
type  of  payment:  30  and  45  days  for  pre-financing,  60  days  for  further  pre-
financing, and 90 days for interim/final payments. 

CHAFEA  met  its  time-to-inform  target  for  all  programmes  throughout  the  evaluation 
period. 

On  time-to-grant,  CHAFEA  also  achieved  its  target  for  all  programmes  throughout  the 
evaluation  period.  Nevertheless,  the  time-to-grant  indicator  for  the  CP  increased 
substantially from 4.6 months in 2017 to 6.9 months in 2020. The sharp increase in this 
indicator  was  mostly  caused  by  the  complex  grant  preparation  process,  (which  in  turn 
simplified  the  process  for  beneficiaries  during  the  submission  phase,  as  well  as  some 
issues encountered with  the IT tool30  The average  time-to-grant  rose for the HP,  which 
reached 8.6 months in 2017 before  falling to 6.4 months in 2020. As for the AGRIP, a 

29   CHAFEA, 2019 annual activity report. 
30  

Ibid. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
downward trend was also observed for the AGRIP, for which the time-to-grant fell from 
8 months in 2017 to 5.4 months in 202031. 

On payments, CHAFEA executed an average of 540 relevant transactions per year, over 
the  evaluation  period.  In  2018,  the  Agency  introduced  a  risk-based  control  strategy  on 
the  payment  of  grants,  with  a  strong  focus  on  the  time-to-pay  indicator.  Under  this 
strategy, grants with a higher risk in terms of the beneficiaries‘ financial capabilities or 
financial accountability systems were subject to reinforced monitoring32. 

In  an  audit  on  CHAFEA’s  control  strategy,  the  IAS  considered  that  this  consultation 
practice  resulted  in  delaying  the  time  taken  to  assess  the  pre-final  deliverables.  In 
addition, as this time was not accounted for in the time-to-pay indicator, it did not fully 
comply  with  the  single  time  limit  provided  by  Directorate-General  for  budget  in  its 
‘guidance  on  commitments  and  payments’.  Therefore,  the  IAS  recommended  taking 
appropriate  measures  to  avoid  long  extensions  to  contracts  (e.g.  by  planning  sufficient 
time  to  review  the  draft  deliverables  with  the  parent  Directorates-General)33.  Specific 
actions were taken to increase cooperation between CHAFEA and its parent Directorates-
General in terms of planning activities and setting realistic timelines. 

Table 1: CHAFEA’s performance on key efficiency indicators within the legal deadline 
targets set 

Time-to-inform 

Time-to-grant 

Time-to-pay 

HP 

CP 

AGRIP  HP 

CP  AGRIP 

HP 

CP 

AGRIP  BTSF 

2017  58.8%  100% 

100% 

82% 

97% 

100% 

82.59% 

93.1% 

97.5% 

95.88% 

2018  84.8%  100% 

100% 

96% 

90% 

100% 

97.35%  95.73% 

98.82% 

93.24% 

2019  100% 

100% 

100% 

98% 

91% 

100% 

99.47% 

100% 

98.88% 

100% 

2020  100% 

100% 

100% 

97% 

91% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Source:  Study  supporting  the  triennial  evaluation  of  the  Agency,  based  on  CHAFEA  AARs,  2017-2020. 
Only the Time-To-Pay indicator is applicable for BTSF, which only had a procurement funding instrument. 

ii)  The  cost-effectiveness  of  CHAFEA’s  management  and  control  arrangements 
improved  during  the  reference  period.  However,  the  Agency’s  programme 
management  costs  were  the  highest  among  all  agencies,  and  its  budget  ‘per 
operational  staff  member’  was  the  lowest,  meaning  that  the  Agency  managed  a 
rather small volume of operational budget as compared with other agencies. 

The cost-effectiveness of management and control arrangements can be expressed as the 
ratio  between  the  administrative  budget  of  the  Agency  and  the  operational  budget  it 
manages. A lower ratio indicates a higher level of cost-effectiveness. This ratio (in terms 
of payments) stood at 8.96% in 2017, and gradually decreased to 8.42% in 2020. This is 
related to a relative increase in the Agency’s operational budget throughout this period. 

CHAFEA’s  programme  management  costs  were  the  highest  among  all  agencies.  The 
average  ratio  between  the  administrative  and  operational  budget  among  the  6  agencies 

31   This could be related to the thematic specificity of the AGRIP and the fact that the Agency adapted its activities to a hybrid or 
digital  format  and  designed  innovative  ways  of  reaching  out  to  target  audiences,  therefore  deliverables  were  not  delayed 
significantly as a result of the pandemic. 

32   CHAFEA, 2018 annual activity report. 
33  

Internal Audit Service, Final audit report on the design and implementation of CHAFEA control strategy, 2020. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
was 4.17% in 2020, with only CHAFEA and EACEA exceeding this average. CHAFEA 
also had the lowest value for budget ‘per operational head’ (in terms of commitments). 
This  figure  amounted  to  EUR 2.49  million  in  2020  (compared  with  an  average  for  all 
agencies of EUR 8.56 million)34. This indicates that the operational staff of the Agency 
managed  a  rather  small  volume  of  operational  budget  compared  with  those  at  other 
agencies.  CHAFEA’s  efficiency  was  therefore  negatively  affected  by  its  small  size, 
reducing its possibility to achieve economies of scale. 

Figure 2: Ratio between CHAFEA’s administrative and operational budget (in terms of 
payments) 

10,80%

10,16%

10,11%

8,96%

8,42%

7,86%

8,42%

12,00%

10,00%

8,00%

6,00%

4,00%

2,00%

0,00%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on CHAFEA AARs, 2017-2020. 

On  the  legality  and  regularity  of  its  programmes’  expenditure  and  the  functioning  of 
programmes’  supervisory  and  control  systems,  CHAFEA  set  up  internal  control 
processes.  These  processes  were  aimed  at  ensuring  the  adequate  management  of  risks 
related  to  the  legality  and  regularity  of  the  underlying  transactions,  taking  into  account 
the  multiannual  character  of  the  programmes  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  payments 
concerned. The related control objective was to ensure that the residual error rate did not 
exceed 2% on a cumulative basis by the end of each programme’s implementation stage. 
The  multiannual  residual  error  rate  in  2017-2020  supporting  CHAFEA’s  declaration  of 
assurance was below the 2% materiality threshold for almost all programmes delegated 
to the Agency. 

A high residual error rate in 2019 for the HP was related to the 2008-2013 generation of 
the programme. This occurred as a result of one ex post audit leading to a high recovery 
amount (of about EUR 75 000 and over 50.0% of the EU contribution) being included in 
the sample35. 

iii)  The  Agency  managed  to  achieve  its  budget  execution  target  in  terms  of  both 
commitments  and  payment  appropriations.  The  execution  of  the  administrative 
budget  in  terms  of  commitment  appropriations  increased  from  95%  in  2017  to 
>99% in 2019 and 2020. In terms of payment appropriations, administrative budget 
execution  increased  from  74%  in  2017  to  90%  in  2020.  A  lower  execution  of 
payment  appropriations  (compared  to  commitment  appropriations)  throughout  the 
evaluation  period  was  related  to  carried-over  appropriations  during  2015  and 
201636.  Also,  in  2020,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  had  a  negative  influence  on  the 

34   The budget ‘per operational staff member’ was calculated according to the screening results (in FTE) provided by  Directorate-
General HR. See the results of the comparative analysis provided in Annex 6 of the external study supporting the evaluation. 

35   CHAFEA considered this case exceptional, and scarcely representative of the entire population. 
36   CHAFEA, 2017 annual activity report. 

24 

 
 
 
 
level of consumption of several administrative budget expenditures, especially those 
relating to the costs of training and missions37. 

The  operational  budget  was  fully  executed  in  almost  all  cases  (>99%)  in  terms  of 
commitment  appropriations.  In  terms  of  payment  appropriations,  the  Agency  was  also 
able  to  achieve  almost  full  execution  of  its  operational  budget,  ranging  from  97%  to 
100% on average per year. 

The  efficiency  of  the  management  of  the  Agency’s  calls  can  be  assessed  through  the 
applicants’ success rate success rate in receiving funding under the programmes managed 
by CHAFEA. This success rate was fairly high, especially for the CP, which ranged from 
80% to  98% during the evaluation  period. Success  rates for the HP  were between 58% 
and 78%, while within the one within AGRIP was somewhat lower, ranging from 28% to 
56%.  This  lower  success  rate  under  the  AGRIP  can  be  explained  by  a  relatively  high 
percentage of ineligible38 or poor-quality proposals across the programmes managed by 
CHAFEA39.  Two  additional  calls  under  the  AGRIP  were  issued  in  2020  during  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  (crisis  calls),  which  corresponded  to  15  additional  grants  funded 
(out of 41 additional proposals). 

Simplification of procedures and flexibility in the implementation of tasks 

i) 

The  Agency  adopted  several  measures  aimed  at  the  simplification  of  procedures 
concerning both IT tools and management procedures. 

The  development  of  simplified  and  digitised  application  and  grant/procurement 
management procedures (especially through the use of corporate tools such as Ares and 
PPMT)  lowered  administrative  burden  for  all  CHAFEA  stakeholders.  Efficiency  gains 
were obtained in terms of the reduced time taken to launch a request for services, due to 
simplified workflows and information being shared electronically. 

The previous evaluation recommended that 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,  to  improve  the  user-
friendliness  and  functionality  of  its  IT  tools  and  further  simplifying  the  administrative 
provisions of the delegated programmes40. 

In 2018, in line with these recommendations, CHAFEA set up an  interinstitutional task 
force  on  simplification,  consisting  of  representatives  of  the  Agency  and  its  parent 
Directorates-General. 

The  purpose  of  the  task  force  was  to  streamline  rules  and  practices  regarding  the 
awarding and management of grants under the delegated programmes, in order to further 
standardise the controls and checks applied41. Among other suggestions, simplified forms 
of  grants  were  reviewed,  and  consideration  was  given  to  several  examples  of 
simplification  measures  already  adopted  by  other  Directorates-General  (e.g.  a  unit  cost 

37   CHAFEA, 2020 annual activity report. 
38   Level of ineligible proposals corresponded to 15% in 2017, 10% in 2018, 4% in 2019, and 9% in 2020 (according to the dataset 

provided by REA). 

39   CHAFEA, 2017-2018 annual activity reports. 
40   LexUriServ.do (europa.eu) 
41   CHAFEA, 2018 annual activity report. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for  staff  under  the  Directorate-General  ESTAT  model,  a  unit  cost  for  travel  from  a 
Directorate-General for budget study, lump sums for grants in a Directorate-General for 
Research  and  Innovation  call)42.  However,  the  implementation  of  these  simplification 
measures was delayed until the next EU budget (multiannual financial framework) due to 
the winding up of CHAFEA43. 

ii)  Following the 2014-2016 evaluation, the Commission decided that the IT tools used 

under Horizon 2020 would become its common corporate tools. 

Therefore,  CHAFEA  relied  solely  on  these  common  corporate  tools,  which  led  to  a 
higher level of standardisation. Throughout the evaluation period, CHAFEA introduced a 
variety  of  IT  simplification  measures.  These  include:  the  document  management  tool 
(Ares);  raising  awareness  of  the  e-Domec  rules  and  the  harmonisation  of  practical 
guidelines  concerning  daily  activities;  joining  the  intranet  for  internal  and  inter-service 
communication; and adopting an integrated planning tool covering all four programmes, 
to ease the planning and monitoring of their main activities. Furthermore, the workflow 
under  the  document  management  tool  Ares  was  simplified  to  remove  a  duplicated 
procedures. 

On  procurement,  in  2020  CHAFEA  adopted  e-procurement,  including  the  mode  of  e-
submission, to align its practices with the Commission's digital agenda. Interviewees for 
this evaluation highlighted the usefulness of the PPMT corporate tool for e-procurement, 
which is used to manage the entire call for tenders’ cycle, right up to the signing of the 
contract. CHAFEA was among the first agencies to adopt this tool, the adoption of which 
produced significant efficiency gains. 

In  terms  of  actions  to  simplify  the  management  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  the 
Agency,  CHAFEA  carried  out  a  comprehensive  documentation  of  the  document 
management procedures, activities and roles within its corporate manual of procedures in 
2019. 

iii)  Most  surveyed  stakeholders  (beneficiaries,  unsuccessful  applicants  and  external 
experts)  were  satisfied  with  the  overall  quality  of  the  programme  management 
services provided by CHAFEA. 

However, the results of the surveys also indicated that there is still some room for further 
simplification of procedures, in particular regarding granting and reporting requirements, 
as  well  as  increasing  the  user-friendliness  of  the  IT  tools  for  application  submission, 
project management and reporting. 

Efficiency of the programming, evaluation and selection processes 

Based on evidence gathered during the study, CHAFEA managed to successfully launch 
and complete all calls for proposals set out in its annual work programmes (AWPs). To 
maintain  the  efficiency  and  transparency  of  the  programming  and  call  for  proposals 
processes,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  information  for  applicants  is  clear  and  easy  to 
find. 

42   CHAFEA, the 54th Steering Committee Meeting, 2018. 
43   Minutes of CHAFEA’s 2nd Interinstitutional Task Force Simplification Meeting, 2018. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The beneficiaries’ survey reveals that 80% of respondents agreed that the information for 
applicants  was  easy to  find while 72% agreed that  it was clear. However, only  63% of 
beneficiaries  agreed  that  the  IT  tool  used  for  the  application  process  was  user-friendly, 
and 65% also agreed that the e-form used for application/submission was clear and easy 
to  complete,  showing  that  there  was  still  room  for  the  further  simplification  of  the 
application process. 

Most  stakeholders  agreed  that  the  requirements  of  the  application  process  were 
reasonable  and  proportionate,  but  some  respondents  claimed  that  the  administrative 
burden  was  still  too  heavy  in  terms  of  information  submission  in  one  workflow,  and  a 
lack of streamlining across the templates. 

Efficiency of the process of concluding grant agreements and contracts, for the follow-
up, monitoring and control of grant/contract implementation and for ex post controls 

Stakeholders were generally positive about  their  cooperation  with  CHAFEA during the 
project contracting phase. 

CHAFEA  beneficiaries  were  also  generally  positive  about  their  cooperation  with  the 
Agency  during  the  project  implementation  phase.  A  total  of  97%  of  surveyed 
beneficiaries  knew  whom  to  contact  or  how  to  contact  CHAFEA  with  any  questions 
about the implementation of the grant/project, while 94% of respondents agreed that the 
answers  they  received  from  CHAFEA  to  their  questions  were  clear  and  accurate.  Most 
beneficiaries (87%) agreed that the monitoring activities carried out by CHAFEA staff or 
external experts working on behalf of CHAFEA were useful to the implementation of the 
grant/project. 

A  slightly  lower  share  of  beneficiaries  agreed  that  the  instructions  given  on  reporting 
procedures  were  clear  and  user-friendly  (73%)  and  that  project  reporting  requirements 
were  reasonable  in  comparison  to  the  size  of  the  grant  and/or  the  scale  of  the  project 
(77%).  Overall,  78%  of  beneficiaries  agreed  that  the  process  of  monitoring  the 
grant/project by CHAFEA was clear. 

All of the respondents agreed that the CHAFEA employees assigned to the grant/project 
amendment procedure were easily available and responsive, and that the information and 
advice provided by CHAFEA during the amendment procedure was clear. 

As for the time to pay, the survey results demonstrates that while beneficiaries were more 
satisfied with the time it took for CHAFEA to make pre-financing and interim payments 
(93%  of  respondents),  they  were  less  satisfied  with  the  time  it  took  to  process  final 
payments (80% of respondents). Overall, 90% of beneficiaries agreed that  the payment 
process was smooth. 

Evidence collected during the external study did not give rise to concerns regarding the 
implementation  of  ex post  controls  by  CHAFEA.  These  are  carried  out  on  the  costs 
declared  to  the  Agency.  They  consist  of  verifying  the  legality  and  regularity  of  the 
underlying transactions, including public procurement controls to determine the amount 
of  eligible  declared  costs  (and  consequently,  the  eligible  EU  contribution,  which 
comprises cleared pre-financing and actual interim and final payment amounts). 

Overall,  24%  of  respondents  to  the  beneficiaries’  survey  indicated  that  their  project 
underwent monitoring, and another 12% of respondents indicated that their organisation 
was audited. Two respondents out of these five agreed that the monitoring/audit process 
was smooth while only two respondents agreed that the scope of information requested 

27 

 
 
from  them  for  the  purposes  of  monitoring/audit  was  reasonable  (another  two  disagreed 
and one was neutral). 

Throughout the 2014-2020 EU budget (multiannual financial framework), a total of 40 ex 
post audits were performed on final payments under programmes managed by CHAFEA, 
most  of  which  were  performed  under  the  HP  (24  ex  post  audits).  Ex  post  audits  were 
carried out on grants accounting for 10.6% of the total value of the EU contributions for 
grants for which final payments were made in 2014-2019. 

Efficiency of internal organisation and procedures 

CHAFEA finalised a reorganisation in 2018 to increase synergies, increase the exchange 
of  good  practice,  reduce  silo  effects,  better  align  with  the  parent  Directorates-General, 
and better balance its workload. 

Due  to  its  small  size,  CHAFEA  was  organised  according  to  thematic  portfolios  and 
funding instruments. Organisation by thematic portfolios allowed the Agency to maintain 
a great deal of thematic knowledge. However, high thematic specialisation and different 
types of financial instruments limited the Agency’s ability to  improve the efficiency of 
its programme management. The Agency’s high workload was closely linked to a diverse 
programme portfolio that was implemented through a wide mix of different instruments. 

Due  to  the  Agency's  small  size,  staff  vacancies  had  a  much  bigger  impact  on  its  work 
compared  with  larger  organisations.  Therefore,  CHAFEA  adopted  specific  measures  to 
counter  the  effects  of  turnover.  Horizontal  (administrative)  functions  placed  heavier 
pressure  (in  relative  terms)  on  the  resources  of  the  Agency,  compared  with  larger 
agencies. 

The  results  of  the  2018  staff  survey  revealed  an  improvement  in  almost  all  areas, 
therefore highlighting the positive impact of the actions taken under the 2016-2020 HR 
strategy. 

4.1.3.  Coherence 

Delimitation  of  responsibilities  and 
Directorates-General 

tasks  between  CHAFEA  and 

its  parent 

The  legal  framework  and  the  memorandum  of  understanding  set  out  clear  provisions 
regarding  the  limits  of  responsibilities  between  CHAFEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-
General, with a view to ensuring overall policy coherence and effective communication. 
In  practice,  there  was  still  a  need  to  further  determine  specific  business  processes  and 
the  division  of 
adjust  CHAFEA’s  organisational  structure 
its  parent 
responsibilities  and 
the 
Directorates-General.  Therefore,  continuous  efforts  were  made 
delineation  of  responsibilities  between  the  Agency  (programme  management)  and  the 
Commission (policymaking) during the evaluation period. 

improve  collaboration  between 

the  Agency  and 

to  maintain 

to  clarify 

in  order 

The reorganisation of the Agency that took place in 2018 established a clear mirroring of 
the programmes delegated to CHAFEA and was instrumental in clarifying the Agency’s 
relationship with its parent Directorates-General44. 

44 CHAFEA, Annual Activity Report 2017. 

28 

 
 
 
 
In addition, a guidance document set up jointly by CHAFEA and Directorate-General for 
Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  in  2018  complemented  the  memorandum  of 
understanding  and  further  clarified  joint  work  in  the  organisation  of  promotional 
activities (the implementation of promotional events and campaigns) under the initiative 
of the Commission. 

On grant management, the delimitation of responsibilities was clear both within the legal 
framework and on the ground. In contrast, the implementation of delegated measures on 
the initiative of the Commission (procurements) required continuous efforts to delineate 
roles and tasks between the Agency and the parent Directorates-General45. As set out in 
the  legal  framework,  parent  Directorates-General  prepared  technical  specifications  for 
individual  procurements  while  CHAFEA  was  responsible  for  organising 
these 
procurements,  sign  the  contracts  and  monitor  their  implementation46.  Former  staff  of 
CHAFEA  were  of  the  opinion  that  there  were  some  uncertainties  regarding  this 
delineation during the implementation phase. 

to  CHAFEA 

The  parent  Directorates-General  delegated 
implementation  of 
administrative tasks related to some politically sensitive topics. These typically took the 
form of technical support services through procurement and service contracts; operations 
aimed at enhancing the image of EU products and/or improving knowledge of the Union 
rules; and trade missions with political and business objectives, also known as ‘high-level 
missions’  (in  the  case  of  the  AGRIP).  The  most  sensitive  elements  of  the  procurement 
activities were treated in close cooperation with the Commission to ensure respect of the 
delegation principles.  

the 

the  organisation  and 
On  high-level  missions,  CHAFEA  was  responsible  for 
implementation  of the business aspects  of these  missions while  Directorate-General  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development was responsible for their public policy and political 
elements.  This  required  the  close  involvement  of  the  Commission  in  certain  stages  of 
implementation.  The  frequent  presence  of  representatives  from  the  Commission  at 
promotional  events/high-level  missions  organised  by  CHAFEA  to  deliver  policy 
messages was complementary to the work delegated to the Agency, and in line with the 
legal framework. 

Coordination  between  the  Agency  and  the  Commission  became  especially  intertwined 
when it came to engaging with stakeholders in the countries visited, as well as with other 
external audiences reached by communication campaigns and events. While appreciating 
the  workload  that  was  relieved  through  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  CHAFEA,  the  close 
involvement  of  the  Commission  was  also  needed  to  mitigate  any  potential  reputational 
risks. 

As far as the work programmes are concerned, the overall delineation of responsibilities 
was in line with the legal framework. The Agency was proactive overall in contributing 
to  the drafting of these work programmes,  but  its  contributions  were limited to  feeding 
monitoring  information  and  indicating  operational  capacity  without  making  proposals 

45  In  its  report  on  CHAFEA's  management  and  control  system  for  the  implementation  of  the  measures  for  the  promotion  of 
agricultural  products  –  15/09/2017,  the  IAS  noted  that  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  CHAFEA  and  Directorate-General  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development needed to be clarified 

46 Memorandum of Understanding between the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency and Directorate-General 
Health  and  Food  Safety,  Directorate-General  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Directorate-General  Justice  and  Consumers, 
Directorate-General Internal market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs: Modalities and Procedures of Interaction, 2016 

29 

 
 
 
 
regarding  specific  types  of  activities.  The  parent  Directorates-General  followed  the 
policy priorities when considering the Agency’s input. 

Throughout the evaluation period, CHAFEA maintained appropriate interactions with its 
parent  Directorates-General  and  supported  them  in  drafting  the  work  programmes 
primarily  by  providing  information  on  the  outputs  of  implementation  from  monitoring 
activities.  Awareness  regarding  the  delineation  of  responsibilities  and  tasks  between 
CHAFEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-General  was  fairly  high  among  beneficiaries  and 
external experts. 

The  mechanisms  through  which  the  different  responsibilities  were  communicated  to 
beneficiaries  involved  various  events,  such  as  information  and  kick-off  sessions, 
inception meetings, webinar programmes  and  finalisation events47. CHAFEA organised 
annual information sessions for its various programmes, at which different types of calls 
(including joint  action calls and calls for proposals) were presented, demonstrating that 
the  Agency  dedicated  deliberate  attention  to  explaining  the  differences  in  the 
responsibilities  of  the  Agency  and  the  Commission  during  its  meetings  with 
beneficiaries. 

Better focus of the Commission on its policy-related tasks enabled by the delegation of 
programme implementation to the Agency 

The delegation of  programme management tasks to  CHAFEA enabled the Commission 
to better focus on its primary policymaking tasks. This was possible because the Agency 
was  able  to  fulfil  its  responsibilities  in  an  efficient  and  effective  way.  During  the 
evaluation  period,  the  workload  in  terms  of  project  management  –  launching  calls, 
executing programmes, organising evaluations, signing contracts and following them up 
– was very high. Therefore, retaining such tasks within the Commission would certainly 
have resulted in it having less time and dedicated attention to policy related tasks. While 
levels  of  coordination  between  the  Agency  and  the  parent  Directorates-General  varied 
(with  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  and  Directorate-
General for Health and Food Safety occasionally being involved in redundant activities), 
all  parent  Directorates-General  agreed  that  it  was  helpful  overall  to  be  able  to  delegate 
project management and procurement tasks to CHAFEA. 

Managing  contractual  arrangements,  preparing  service  contracts  and  other  substantial 
work  (such  as  drafting  or  problem-solving)  were  the  main  areas  in  which  the  parent 
Directorates-General indicated CHAFEA was very helpful in  alleviating their workload 
and allowing them  to  focus  on policy tasks.  The Agency was  especially  valuable to  its 
parent Directorates-General due to its extensive knowledge of funding mechanisms. The 
involvement of CHAFEA was also valued by parent Directorates-General when carrying 
out procurement activities, as it eased their workload significantly. 

Furthermore, the Agency was especially valued by the parent Directorates-General for its 
agility and flexibility in accommodating last-minute requests. 

47 CHAFEA, 2019 annual activity report. 

30 

 
 
 
 
Maintenance  by  the  Commission  of  an  adequate  level  of  know-how  relating  to 
programmes implemented by the executive agency 

The physical distance between the Agency (based in Luxembourg) and the Commission 
(in Brussels, with a Directorate of Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety being 
in  Luxembourg)  was not perceived  as an important  constraint on knowledge exchange, 
neither by the Agency nor by its parent Directorates-General. 

This  was  because  the  Agency’s  staff  made  regular  trips  to  Brussels  and  used  other 
channels  for  information  and  reporting  (even  before  moving  to  teleworking  and  online 
communication during the COVID-19 pandemic). Furthermore, the units of Directorate-
General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  responsible  for  steering  and  supervising  the 
implementation of the HP were also located in Luxembourg. 

Finding  the  right  balance  between  performing  the  delegated  tasks  in  relation  to 
programme  implementation,  and  the  tasks  related  to  promoting  knowledge  transfer  and 
feedback  to  the  Commission  was  somewhat  of  a  challenge  for  CHAFEA  during  the 
evaluation period. 

The study supporting previous evaluation revealed that the Agency lacked a standardised 
approach  to  the  transfer  of  knowledge  and  information  to  the  Commission.  It  was 
therefore recommended to harmonise reporting and to enhance the quality of reports and 
data.  The  Commission  could  contribute  to  this  process  by  setting  clearer  and  more 
uniform  guidelines  and  expectations48.  The  Agency  took  steps  to  address  these 
recommendations by taking stock of what had been developed with regard to information 
and  the  transfer  of  knowledge  in  2017-2018  (e.g.  a  project  end  note  for  the  HP  was 
identified as a good practice). Seeking to harmonise different reporting approaches and to 
make the transfer of information more regular, a standard quarterly report template was 
designed in agreement with the parent Directorates-General49. 

The  need  to  improve  the  evaluation  of  results  at  the  Agency  level  and  the  transfer  of 
information  and  knowledge  to  the  parent  Directorates-General  was  highlighted  by  the 
Commission’s  strategy  to  move  towards  ‘better  performance’  in  2018.  In  line  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  previous  evaluation  and  the  Commission’s  move  towards 
achieving more policy support, CHAFEA initiated an action plan on knowledge sharing 
and  feedback  to  policy  in  the  last  quarter  of  202050.  However,  the  action  plan  was  not 
completed due to the announcement of the Agency’s winding up. 

During  the  evaluation  period,  CHAFEA  collaborated  with  Directorate-General  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development to answer questions from beneficiaries and Member 
States in relation to legislative interpretations. The detailed answers were posted on the 
CHAFEA website and organised by subject for easy searchability. This unique solution 
helped to streamline the work-intensive process of answering legal questions. In addition, 
it  facilitated  knowledge  exchange  between  the  Agency,  its  parent  Directorate-General 
and  stakeholders.  However,  following  the  winding  up  of  CHAFEA,  the  large  portal  of 
tenders  was  moved  to  the  website  of  one  of  its  successor  agencies,  REA.  In  doing  so, 
some of its efficiency has been lost, as the answers are no longer organised by subject, 
and are therefore more difficult to navigate. 

48   European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Study supporting the evaluation of the operation of the 

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (2014-2016): final report, Publications Office, 2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/085399 

49   Action plan on addressing the external evaluation of the Agency, 2020. 
50   CHAFEA, the 59th Steering Committee meeting, 17 October 2019. 

31 

 
 
Another  factor  facilitating  knowledge  sharing  between  the  Agency  and  its  parent 
Directorates-General  is  the  fact  that  a  proportion  of  the  Agency’s  staff  were  former 
policy officers from  the parent  Directorates-General who were seconded to  the Agency 
as temporary agents. This facilitated the exchange of information and knowledge sharing 
between  the  Agency  and  the  Commission’s  policy  units.  This  mechanism  was 
particularly relevant to the AGRIP, because the seconding of officials from Directorate-
General for Agriculture and Rural Development helped to achieve a better understanding 
of political implications involved in the management of highly politically sensitive tasks 
of the Commission. 

While  the  Agency  contributed  greatly  to  the  overall  success  of  programme  results  and 
was able to present them in a way that benefited the Commission’s policymaking overall, 
a clearer, jointly agreed  monitoring and feedback framework  would have  improved the 
clarity  and  relevance  of  the  feedback  provided.  From  CHAFEA’s  perspective,  a  clear 
communication  of  the  Directorates-General  needs  would  enhance  the  Agency’s 
understanding  of  what  kind  of  deliverables  would  have  been  most  helpful  in  terms  of 
feedback to policy. This echoes the previous evaluation’s recommendation to set clearer 
and more uniform guidelines and expectations for feedback. 

Despite  agreement  among  representatives  of  the  parent  Directorates-General  that  there 
was  always  some  room  for  improvement,  CHAFEA  was  generally  perceived  as 
successful  in  appropriately  disseminating  information  among  the  parent  Directorates-
General. 

The  quality  and  the  level  of  feedback  to  policy  provided  by  CHAFEA  to  its  parent 
Directorates-General  was  therefore  appropriate,  albeit  that  there  was  room  for  a  more 
systemic approach. 

Overall, the policy support and the know-how provided by CHAFEA were seen as useful 
by the parent Directorates-General, especially when preparing a draft budget, monitoring 
reports, selecting financial instruments and other tasks. 

Some success stories were noted, such as CHAFEA’s support to Directorate-General for 
Health and Food Safety regarding EU cooperation in rare diseases. 

In 2017, the European Ombudsman assigned an award to Directorate-General for Health 
and  Food  Safety  for  the  good  administration  of  EU  cooperation  in  rare  diseases. 
Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety‘s  Director  General  gave  credit  to 
CHAFEA for the award, expressing appreciation for its efficiency in carrying out all of 
the  procedures  leading  to  the  establishment  of  the  European  reference  networks.  This 
acknowledged CHAFEA‘s capacity to deliver support to important policy initiatives. 

The main mechanisms and instruments that allowed the flow of information between the 
Agency and its parent Directorates-General throughout the evaluation period were based 
on various forms of engagement (primarily meetings: with management, dissemination, 
cluster) and reporting arrangements (e.g. design of a standard quarterly report template in 
agreement with its parent Directorates-General). 

CHAFEA  stood  out  for  its  well-organised  website,  which  made  it  easy  for  the  parent 
Directorates-General to extract any data required. One particularly useful feature allowed 
external  organisations  and  partners  to  promptly  find  answers  to  their  questions.  The 
Agency also maintained a project database in which concrete deliverables were regularly 
published. This was highlighted during interviews as an important channel via which the 
Directorates-General could  retrieve information  for policymaking purposes. In terms  of 
tools, CHAFEA introduced various groups in Microsoft Teams, with dedicated channels 

32 

 
and files in one place. The use of SharePoint and e-procurement also helped to streamline 
workflows. 

Benefit  for  the  Commission  from  know-how  created  in  the  Agency  through  the 
monitoring, reporting and supervision arrangements put in place 

The monitoring, reporting and supervision arrangements put in place by the Agency and 
the Commission were effective and ensured both accountability and knowledge transfer 
between the Agency and its parent Directorates-General. 

While  updating  the  supervision  and  monitoring  strategy  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
Commission  was  the  responsibility  of  the  parent  Directorates-General,  the  Agency 
showed initiative in suggesting additional improvements when needed. 

CHAFEA  worked  under  the  supervision  of  its  Steering  Committee,  which  included 
representatives  of  the  parent  Directorates-General51.  By  participating  in  the  Steering 
Committee  meetings  and  reviewing  all  the  information  provided  by  the  Director  of  the 
Agency,  these  representatives  ensured  the  monitoring  of  the  Agency.  Their  role  also 
involved  checking  whether  the  information  provided  by  the  Agency  was  reliable  and 
sufficient to draw management conclusions at Directorate-General level. 

The  Agency's  annual  activity  reports  were  the  main  instruments  in  its  management 
accountability to the Commission. 

The transactions within the Agency’s administrative budget were audited annually by the 
European  Court  of  Auditors,  while  its  operating  processes  and  control  system  were 
audited  by  the  IAS  of  the  Commission.  In  addition,  the  programmes  managed  by 
CHAFEA were regularly evaluated by the Commission52. 

Regular  meetings  and  communication  also  served  as  an  important  part  of  monitoring, 
reporting  and  supervision  arrangements  between  CHAFEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-
General. 

These  meetings  served  as  the  main  channel  and  opportunity  to  inform  the  parent 
Directorates-General  about  policy-relevant  developments,  trends  and  issues.  At  team 
level, meetings involved going through issues with either grants or procurement. At the 
unit  level,  they  looked  at  the  implementation  of  the  programme  and  at  upcoming 
activities. At the director level, a more cross-cutting review and reporting took place. 

4.2.  Cost-benefit analysis 

Background 

A detailed cost-benefit analysis of all the agencies (including CHAFEA) was conducted 
in  2013  for  the  2014-2020  EU  budget  (multiannual  financial  framework).  The  cost-
benefit  analysis  compared  the  following  four  scenarios,  based  on  varying  levels  of 
delegation and the distribution of programmes between different agencies: 

-  an in-house scenario, which assumed new programmes would be managed by 
the Commission while the agencies would remain responsible for the delivery 
of legacy work (2007-2013 multiannual financial framework programmes); 

-  an initial delegation scenario defined by the Commission; 

51 CHAFEA, 2018-2019 annual activity reports. 
52 CHAFEA, 2019 annual activity report. 

33 

 
 
- 

two  alternative  delegation  scenarios  with  different  options  for  delegation 
among the agencies. 

A  description  of  CHAFEA’s  programme  portfolio  for  the  2014-2020  period  under 
different scenarios is presented in Table 2. 

Table 2: CHAFEA’s 2014-2020 programme portfolio under different Cost-Benefit 
Analysis 2013 scenarios 

Initial scenario 

Alternative scenario 1 

Alternative scenario 2 

2014-2020 consumer programme 
2014-2020 public health 
programme 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 
Parts of Horizon 2020 – Food 
security, sustainable agriculture, 
marine and maritime research and 
bio-economy 
Parts of Horizon 2020 SME 
instrument 

2014-2020 consumer programme  
2014-2020 public health 
programme 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 
Parts of Horizon 2020 SME 
instrument 
Changes compared with the 
initial scenario 
Allocation to REA of parts of 
Horizon 2020 – Food security, 
sustainable agriculture, marine 
and maritime research and bio-
economy 

2014-2020 consumer programme 
2014-2020 public health 
programme 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 
Changes compared with the 
initial scenario 
Allocation to REA of parts of 
Horizon 2020 – Food security, 
sustainable agriculture, marine 
and maritime research and bio-
economy 
Centralised management of the 
entire Horizon 2020 SME 
instrument by EASME 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

It  was  concluded  that  alternative  Scenario  2  was  the  most  efficient  in  terms  of  cost 
savings and qualitative benefits. 

In general, it was expected that the agencies would also benefit from economies of scale 
as they became larger.  However, it was also  noted that due to  its small size, CHAFEA 
would not be able to fully reap the economies of scale in its operations. The new mandate 
almost doubled the ratio of budget ‘per head’ in the case of CHAFEA – from EUR 1.36 
in 2013 to 2.49 million in 2020. 

Figure 3: Number of staff estimated under different delegation scenarios 

90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

71,9

69,6

67,9

64,8

62,8

61,9

52,4

50,5
50,5

54,3

51,9
51,5

83,3

80,4

77,9

86,0
83,0
80,9

77,2

74,7

72,9

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

In-house

Executive agency - CBA

Executive agency - SFS

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the cost-benefit analysis and 
specific financial statement.  
Note: includes staff at the Commission to ensure supervision of and coordination with CHAFEA. 

34 

 
 
 
Actual staffing and costs of CHAFEA 

During  the  2017-2020  period  of  operations,  the  administrative  budget  actually 
implemented  by  CHAFEA53  amounted  to  EUR 41.4  million  and  was  higher  than  the 
specific  financial  statement  estimates.  This  primarily  related  to  the  underestimation  of 
CHAFEA’s  staff  costs.  The  average  staff  costs  were  adjusted  for  2014  taking  into 
account  CHAFEA’s  draft  budget  2014,  but  for  2015  and  further  years  the  cost-benefit 
analysis estimates were used without any further adjustments. The  cost-benefit analysis 
and  specific  financial  statement  estimations  were  based  on  the  EU  contribution  alone, 
whereas CHAFEA’s administrative budget also included contributions from EEA/EFTA 
and  non-EU  countries  (EUR 0.59  million  during  the  period  2017-2020)  to  manage  an 
additional  operational  budget.  However,  contributions  from  EEA/EFTA  and  non-EU 
countries constitute around 1.4% of CHAFEA’s total administrative budget, and do not 
change the overall results of the analysis. 

Staff-related  expenditure  (Title  I)  was  substantially  higher  than  the  initial  estimates. 
This related to the underestimated average staff costs in the cost-benefit analysis and in 
the specific financial statement for 2015 and subsequent years. Such deviation reflected 
unsustainable initial cost-benefit analysis / specific financial statement assumptions: 1) as 
noted before, the average costs were not adjusted for inflation, and 2) the average staff 
costs  for  CHAFEA  were  based  on  the  weighted  average  staff  costs  of  all  agencies, 
disregarding  the  fact  that  the  actual  staff  costs  for  CHAFEA  were  higher.  The  higher 
level of salaries at CHAFEA compared with other agencies was related to several factors. 

- 

Its  location  in  Luxembourg  –  most  Agency  staff  were  expatriates  entitled  to 
corresponding benefits. 

-  CHAFEA  was  a  small  agency  that  managed  four  unrelated  programmes.  To 
manage actions related to important policy topics within these programmes, it 
was  crucial  to  have  qualified  administrators  at  the  FGIV  level.  Furthermore, 
due  to  the  small  size  of  each  unit  and  the  necessity  to  ensure  business 
continuity  in  each  programme,  the  proportion  of  FGIV  agents  in  CHAFEA 
was  higher  than  in  many  other  agencies.  This  had  an  impact  on  CHAFEA’s 
average  staff  cost  for  contractual  agents.  Due  to  higher  living  costs,  the 
Agency had to offer higher-grade positions to attract suitable candidates  with 
the right profile to manage these policy-relevant actions. It was known that the 
FGI salary was lower than the minimum legal  salary in  Luxembourg and the 
FGII salary was only slightly higher, making recruitment within these contract 
agents categories somewhat difficult in Luxembourg. 

-  Due to CHAFEA’s small size, the impact of higher-salaried staff (middle and 
top management) on the average salary was higher than for other agencies. 

The  issue  of  higher  staff  costs  was  highlighted  during  the  previous  evaluation  of 
CHAFEA  and  the  corresponding  retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis.  During  the  2017-
2020  period,  the  actual  average  staff  costs  for  CHAFEA  were  higher  than  the  average 
costs across the Commission, both  for  temporary agents  and contract  agents  (see Table 
3). 

53 Based on executed commitment appropriations. 

35 

 
 
 
The actual number of the CHAFEA staff54 financed from the EU contribution was within 
the specific financial statement-estimated range in 2017-2020. The staff composition (the 
ratio  between  temporary  agents  and  contract  agents)  corresponded  to  the  specific 
financial statement estimates. 

Infrastructure  and  operating  expenditure  (overheads,  Title  II)  was  lower  than  was 
estimated  in  the  specific  financial  statement  (~95%  of  the  specific  financial  statement 
estimates  in  2017-2020).  The  actual  average  overheads  of  CHAFEA  were  also  lower 
than the average costs for the Commission. 

Similarly,  the  actual  programme  support  expenditure  (Title  III)  remained  below  the 
specific financial statement estimates. 

Table 3: Estimated and actual average staff costs and overheads, EUR 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Average costs set by Directorate-General for budget for estimates of human resources and 
overheads in legislative financial statements  
Average staff cost: temporary agents 
Average staff cost: contract agents 
Overheads 
Actual average costs55 of CHAFEA 
143 826  140 256  138 472  144 928 
Average staff cost: temporary agents 
70 058 
Average staff cost: contract agents 
Overheads 
20 130 
Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the specific financial statement 
final annual accounts and the draft general budget of the EU. 

115 000  119 000  123 000  125 000 
55 000 
25 000 

70 754 
20 662 

68 447 
18 960 

65 221 
22 397 

50 000 
24 000 

52 000 
25 000 

47 000 
23 000 

Cost-effectiveness of the executive agency scenario and actual savings due to 
externalisation 

To  assess  whether  the  conclusions  of  the  ex  ante  assessment  (the  estimates  of  savings 
provided in the cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement) are still valid when 
compared  with  the  actual  situation,  and  what  the  overall  possible  savings  are,  the 
following approach was adopted: 

-  data  were  drawn  on  the  actual  performance  of  CHAFEA  (actual  execution  of  the 

administrative budget, actual staffing, etc.) for the executive agency scenario; 

- 

to  ensure  comparability  and  validity  of  results,  the  assumptions  laid  down  in  the 
cost-benefit  analysis  and  specific  financial  statement  were  followed,  and  estimates 
of  the  comparable  ‘actual’  in-house  (Commission)  scenario  (the  comparator)  that 
would best reflect the actual situation were provided; 

-  based on these estimates, it was assessed whether the conclusions of the cost-benefit 
analysis  and  specific  financial  statement  ex  ante  assessments  are  still  valid  when 
compared with the actual situation, and what the overall possible savings are. 

54 Actual number of staff at the end of the year. 
55 Average staff costs include professional development and social expenditure. 

36 

 
 
 
To deconstruct the ‘actual’ in-house (Commission) scenario (the comparator), estimates 
were  based  on  the  following  cost-benefit  analysis  /  specific  financial  statement 
assumptions: 

- 

staff  numbers  and  composition  at  the  Commission  and  CHAFEA  under  the  in-
house scenario corresponds to the specific financial statement estimations; 

-  Commission  staff  costs  and  overheads  correspond  to  the  average  costs  set  by 
Directorate-General  for  Budget  for  the  estimates  of  HR  and  overheads  in 
legislative financial statements for each year of the evaluation period 2017-2020. 
-  CHAFEA’s  average  staff  costs  and  overheads  under  the  in-house  scenario  (for 
legacy)  correspond  to  the  actual  average  CHAFEA’s  staff  costs  and  overheads 
for each year of the evaluation period 2017-2020. 

-  Programme  support  expenditure  (Title  III)  remains  the  same  under  both  the  in-

house scenario and the executive agency scenario. 

Results of the analysis 

The  overall  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario56  amounted  to  EUR 42.5 
million  during  the  period  2017-2020.  To  evaluate  the  extent  to  which  the  actual  costs 
corresponded  to  the  initial  specific  financial  statement  estimates,  the  same  assumptions 
that  produced  such  specific  financial  statement  estimates  were  followed.  The  specific 
financial statement estimates (EUR 37.5 million for the period 2017-2020) were based on 
the  EU  contribution,  whereas  CHAFEA’s  administrative  budget  also 
included 
contributions  from  EEA/EFTA  and  non-EU  countries  (EUR 0.59  million  during  the 
period 2017-2020) to manage an additional operational budget. 

Consequently,  based  on  the  EU  contribution  alone,  the  actual  costs  of  the  executive 
agency  scenario  amounted  to  EUR 41.9  million,  and  were  EUR 4.4  million  (11.8%) 
higher than the specific financial statement estimates. 

This resulted from Title I ‘Staff-related expenditure’, as CHAFEA’s average staff costs 
were  underestimated  in  the  2013  cost-benefit  analysis.  The  average  staff  costs  and 
overheads  for  2014  were  updated  in  the  specific  financial  statement  using  the  figures 
from  CHAFEA’s  draft  budget,  whereas  for  2015-2020  the  average  cost  estimations 
provided in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis were used. 

The costs of the executive agency scenario were lower than the estimated costs of the in-
house scenario. In 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a difference in cost 
between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 4.1 
million (or 8.7% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). 

The  volume  of  the  actual  cost  savings  deriving  from  this  difference  in  cost  constituted 
between  32%  and  36%  of  the  estimated  costs  under  the  in-house  scenario  for  all  other 
agencies of the Commission, according to the cost-benefit analysis results. 

Despite  that  the  executive  agency  scenario  remained  more  cost-effective  than  the  in-
house  scenario  in  the  case  of  CHAFEA,  the  financial  benefits  of  externalisation  were 
more limited than those for other agencies. 

Comparing  the  savings  initially  estimated  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  cost-
benefit  analysis  with  the  actual  savings  from  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  CHAFEA,  it  is 

56  

Including  the  cost  of  coordination  and  monitoring  by  the  Commission  and  the  costs  covered  from  EEA/EFTA  and  non-EU 
country contributions. 

37 

 
 
found  that  the  actual  savings  during  the  2017-2020  period  were  44.7%  lower  than  the 
initial  specific  financial  statement  estimates  (EUR 4.1  million,  compared  with  EUR 7.3 
million),  and  58.7%  lower  than  the  initial  cost-benefit  analysis  estimates  (EUR 4.1 
million, compared with EUR 9.9 million) 

As  forecast  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis, 
savings of the executive agency scenario resulted primarily from a higher share of lower-
cost external personnel employed within the executive agency. However, actual savings 
were limited by the higher actual staff costs of CHAFEA’s temporary staff and contract 
staff when compared with the Commission’s estimated average staff costs. 

Figure 4: Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario for CHAFEA in 
2017-2020 (Title I and Title II expenditure), million EUR 

35,88

33,29

36,38

32,31

26,00

25,92

9,88

7,37

4,08

40,00

35,00

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

CBA estimations

SFS estimations

Actual

Costs of the in-house scenario

Costs of the Executive Agency (EA) scenario

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

The estimated savings in the cost-benefit analysis were complemented by efficiency and 
flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  outsourced  tasks  as  CHAFEA  was  efficient  in 
producing  the planned outputs and achieving  good results in  terms of  key performance 
indicators related to the management of the delegated programmes. 

The Agency managed to achieve the expected outputs and results despite the challenges 
it  faced  during  the  evaluation  period  (especially  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the 
transition process to the successor agencies). 

The  development  of  simplified  and  digitised  application  and  grant  management 
procedures  lowered  the  administrative  burden  for  all  stakeholders  while  CHAFEA’s 
proximity  to  the  programme  participants  was  reflected  in  the  maintained  contact  with 
applicants, beneficiaries, and external experts throughout the evaluation period. Based on 
the evidence collected during the study supporting the evaluation, CHAFEA ensured the 
visibility  of  the  EU  as  the  promoter  of  the  programmes  entrusted  to  the  Agency, 
contributing to a positive image of the EU. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

The Agency effectively met its mission and objectives within the existing regulatory and 
operational framework. 

38 

 
 
 
During  the  evaluation  period  2017-2021,  CHAFEA  was  responsible  for  implementing 
the following programmes: the consumer programme (CP); the public health programme 
(HP); the food  safety  training measures (BTSF); the  promotion of  agricultural  products 
programme (AGRIP); as well as some legacy programmes. 

CHAFEA was therefore responsible for managing a broad range of programmes within a 
diverse  and  fragmented  portfolio.  This  situation  limited  possible  improvements  to  the 
efficiency  of  programme  management  and  made  it  difficult  for  the  Agency  to  exploit 
synergies and complementarities between them. However, the Agency managed to adopt 
organisational  and  managerial  changes  (e.g.  by  adapting  its  organisational  structure  or 
developing  a  single  manual  of  procedures)  that  increased  the  internal  coherence  of 
programme  management  within  the  Agency,  and  improved  communication  with  its 
parent Directorates-General. 

Effectiveness 

CHAFEA demonstrated flexibility and adaptability to key changes that occurred during 
the  evaluation  period  2017-2021.  This  included  adapting  its  organisational  structure 
following  the  Commission’s  reorganisation  in  2016,  responding  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  (by  changing  the  management  of  delegated  programmes  and  its  internal 
business  processes)  and  Brexit,  as  well  as  implementing  the  transition  to  the  Brussels-
based agencies after the Commission’s decision to wind up the Agency. 

Through  the  implementation  of  a  specific  action  plan,  the  transition  to  the  successor 
agencies  was  implemented  in  a  timely  manner  (before  31 March  2021,  when  new 
programmes  were  launched).  Making  the  decision  to  wind  up  CHAFEA  sooner  would 
have provided more time for the better organisation  of the transition  process,  including 
the transfer of the databases, information and know-how accumulated by CHAFEA. 

CHAFEA effectively supported the achievement of the objectives and priorities set out in 
the strategic and management plans of its parent Directorates-General. A few innovative 
practices  were  introduced  during  the  evaluation  period  to  make  the  Agency  more 
effective in achieving its objectives (e.g. the manual of procedures, the COMPASS tool 
for  eGrants,  the  use  of  the  PM2  project  management  methodology,  the  development  of 
guidelines for the implementation of promotional activities with Directorate-General for 
Agriculture and Rural Development, and the ‘evaluation of evaluations’). 

The  Agency  mostly  achieved  the  intended  outputs  by  effectively  meeting  (with  some 
occasional  deviations)  the  key  performance  indicators  outlined  in  its  annual  work 
programmes (AWPs), even if there was room for these key performance indicators to be 
adjusted  to  better  reflect  the  differences  in  workload  between  different  funding 
instruments (grants and procurement). 

All key stakeholders (parent Directorates-General, beneficiaries, unsuccessful applicants, 
and  external  experts)  were  generally  satisfied  with  the  performance  of  CHAFEA.  For 
instance, a total of 94% of the Agency’s beneficiaries surveyed for the present evaluation 
were satisfied with its performance overall (compared with 74% of satisfied beneficiaries 
during  the  previous  evaluation).  Representatives  from  the  parent  Directorates-General 
emphasised the Agency’s flexibility in the management of grants and procurement. 

CHAFEA successfully employed its communication capacities to support the execution 
of  its  delegated  programmes.  The  Agency  met  or  even  occasionally  exceeded  its 
communication  objectives  and  targets  during  the  evaluation  period.  The  key  groups  of 
stakeholders  (beneficiaries,  unsuccessful  applicants  and  external  experts)  considered 
CHAFEA-managed  programmes  as  well  promoted.  They  were  aware  that  their  project 

39 

 
was funded from the EU budget, and that the Commission had entrusted CHAFEA with 
programme  management.  Building  on  the  findings  of  desk  research  and  stakeholder 
consultations, the evaluation results enable to conclude that during the period 2017-2021, 
CHAFEA performed in an effective way at the level of both outputs and outcomes. 

Efficiency 

CHAFEA  implemented  its  AWPs  in  an  efficient  way,  according  to  the  results  of  desk 
research,  the  cost-benefit  analysis  and  stakeholder  consultations.  The  Agency  was 
efficient  in  producing  the  planned  outputs  (issuing  calls,  evaluating  proposals  and 
administering  grants  and  tenders)  and  meeting  its  key  performance  indicators  (time-to-
inform, 
the 
implementation  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  it.  For  instance,  along  with  two  other 
agencies (REA and INEA), CHAFEA achieved the target of making 100% of payments 
within  the  legal  deadline  threshold  in  2020.  The  Agency  managed  to  achieve  the 
expected  outputs  despite  the  challenges  it  faced  during  the  evaluation  period,  in 
particular, the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition process to the successor agencies. 

time-to-pay,  with  minor  deviations) 

time-to-grant  and 

regarding 

The efficiency of the Agency was however negatively affected by its small size, reducing 
possibilities  to  achieve  economies  of  scale:  the  Agency  managed  to  improve  its 
operational  efficiency,  but  remained  one  of  the  Commission’s  least  operationally 
efficient  agencies.  The  ratio  of  budget  managed  ‘per  head’  increased  from  EUR 2.10 
million in 2017 to EUR 2.33 million in 2020, while the average budget ‘per head’ for the 
Commission’s agencies was EUR 6.25 million in 2020. 

The  ratio  between  CHAFEA’s  administrative  and  operational  budget  decreased  from 
8.96% in  2017 to  8.42% in  2020 but remained significantly higher than  the average of 
the Commission’s agencies (4.17% in 2020), and was among the highest of all executive 
agencies. 

The  Agency  was  successful 
in  achieving  an  efficient  workflow  for  budget 
implementation.  It  managed  to  improve  the  execution  of  the  administrative  budget  in 
terms of both commitment appropriations (from 95% in 2017 to >99% in 2019 and 2020) 
and payment appropriations (from 74% in 2017 to 90% in 2020). 

In 2018, CHAFEA set up an interinstitutional task force on simplification, composed of 
representatives from  the  Agency and its parent  Directorates-General. Although the task 
force  discussed  new  possibilities  for  further  simplification  and  harmonisation  of  the 
financial  mechanisms,  the  adoption  of  these  simplifications  was  delayed  until  the  next 
programming  period  because  the  decision  to  wind  up  the  Agency  made  these  changes 
less relevant. 

The  evaluation  results  show  that  the  introduction  of  corporate  IT  tools,  as  well  as 
simplified workflows in grant and procurement management, lowered the administrative 
burden for all stakeholders. 

Due  to  its  small  size,  CHAFEA  relied  on  the  common  corporate  tools,  which  led  to  a 
higher  level  of  standardisation.  In  addition,  during  the  evaluation  period,  the  Agency 
introduced  a  variety  of  IT  simplification  measures  (e.g.  document  management  tool, 
intranet  for  internal  and  inter-departmental  communication,  integrated  planning  tool), 
adopted  the  PPMT  corporate  tool  for  e-procurement,  and  put  its  corporate  manual  of 
procedures into effect. 

40 

 
Further  simplification  of  granting  and  reporting  requirements,  as  well  as  increasing  the 
user-friendliness  of  IT  tools  for  submitting  applications,  were  however  indicated  by 
surveyed stakeholders as possible areas for the further simplification. 

The  Agency  implemented  its  programmes  using  sound  financial  and  human  resource 
(HR)  management  by  operating  in  line  with  the  Financial  Regulation  and  consistently 
aligning  its  HR  policy  with  those  of  the  Commission.  During  the  evaluation  period, 
CHAFEA continuously improved its financial management through the implementation 
of  a  consolidated  multiannual  control  strategy  over  transactions,  the  optimisation  and 
streamlining of controls, the simplification of workflows, as well as the development and 
implementation  of  an  anti-fraud  strategy.  Furthermore, 
the  Agency  efficiently 
implemented its 2016-2020 HR strategy, which was illustrated by a significant increase 
in staff satisfaction, engagement and well-being at the Agency, according to the results of 
the 2018 Staff survey (e.g. the overall staff engagement index reached 63%, compared to 
55% as reported in the 2016 survey). 

Coherence 

The delegation to CHAFEA of programme management tasks (whose execution usually 
involves  a  high  workload)  enabled  the  Commission  to  better  focus  on  its  primary 
policymaking tasks. 

Due to the separation of policymaking and programme management, it was important for 
the Agency and its parent Directorates-General to maintain close contacts and exchange 
information through various means. 

The  legal  framework  and  the  memorandum  of  understanding  set  out  clear  provisions 
concerning  the  delimitation  of  responsibilities  between  CHAFEA  and  its  parent 
Directorates-General.  However,  it  was  necessary  to  further  determine  specific  business 
processes  and  to  adjust  the  Agency’s  organisational  structure  with  a  view  to  clarifying 
the  division  of  responsibilities  and  optimise  collaboration  between  the  Agency  and  its 
parent Directorates-General. 

Overall, the management of procurement related to politically sensitive topics, required a 
close  involvement  from  the  Commission  in  the Agency’s  activities,  thus  increasing  the 
workload for both the Commission and the Agency. 

CHAFEA was involved in the preparation of work programmes by providing feedback, 
monitoring information and indicating its operational capacity to the parent Directorates-
General. This input proved useful during the annual programming process conducted by 
the  parent  Directorates-General,  enabling  to  exploit  the  Agency’s  knowledge  regarding 
the application of specific funding instruments during implementation. 

Monitoring, reporting and supervision arrangements put in place by the Commission and 
CHAFEA were effective and ensured the Agency’s accountability. There was permanent 
two-way  communication  and  a  good  flow  of  information  between  the  Agency  and  its 
parent  Directorates-General.  For  example,  CHAFEA  took  steps  to  harmonise  different 
reporting approaches and to make the transfer of information more regular by designing a 
standard quarterly report template in agreement with its parent Directorates-General. 

There was still, however, room for the Agency to develop a more structured approach to 
feedback to policy based on the expectations of its parent Directorates-General. 

41 

 
Seconding  (former)  policy  officers  of  parent  Directorates-General  to  CHAFEA  as 
temporary  agents  also  facilitated  the  exchange  of  information  and  knowledge  sharing 
between the Commission and the Agency. 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Overall,  the  evaluation  of  CHAFEA‘s  operation  during  the  period  2017-2021  suggests 
that  the  delegation  of  the  programmes  to  the  Agency  was  justified  in  terms  of  cost 
savings  and  value  added  to  both  programme  management  and  policymaking  in  the 
Commission. 

The results of the 2017-2020 retrospective cost-benefit analysis of CHAFEA showed that 
the actual costs of the executive agency scenario were higher than the specific financial 
statement  estimates.  The  overall  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario57 
amounted to EUR 42.5 million during the period 2017-2020. Based on EU contribution 
alone  (excluding  the  one  of  EFTA/EEA),  the  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency 
scenario amounted to EUR 41.9 million and were EUR 4.4 million (11.8%) higher than 
the specific financial statement estimates.  

The costs of the executive agency scenario were lower than the estimated costs of the in-
house scenario. In 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a difference in cost 
between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 4.1 
million (or 8.7% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). 

Due to the specificities of CHAFEA (small size, higher staff costs) the financial benefits 
of delegation of programme implementation were more limited than with other agencies, 
for which the volume of the actual cost savings amounted to between 32% and 36% of 
the estimated costs under the in-house scenario. 

Comparing  the  savings  initially  estimated  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  cost-
benefit  analysis  with  the  actual  savings  from  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  CHAFEA,  the 
actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were found to be 44.7% lower than the initial 
specific financial statement estimates (EUR 4.1 million, compared with EUR 7.3 million) 
and  58.7%  lower  than  the  initial  cost-benefit  analysis  estimates  (EUR 4.1  million, 
compared with EUR 9.9 million). 

The level of CHAFEA’s workload was increased by the fact that, being a small agency, it 
had to manage a diverse programme portfolio, and there were limited complementarities 
and  synergies  among  the  programmes  themselves,  both  in  terms  of  specialised 
knowledge  and  forms  of  delivery.  Moreover,  the  programmes  managed  by  CHAFEA 
were implemented through a wide mix of instruments. Given that the Agency was much 
smaller than its counterparts, its cross-cutting support functions put heavier pressures, in 
relative terms, on the resources of the Agency, as compared with the situation in larger 
agencies. 

With  a  view  to  developing  more  coherent  agency  portfolios  and  increasing  the  cost-
efficiency  of  delegation  of  the  budget  implementation  to  executive  agencies,  the 
Commission decided to wind up CHAFEA.  

57   Including the cost of coordination and monitoring by the Commission and the costs covered from EEA/EFTA and non-EU country 

contributions. 

42 

 
 
The activities of CHAFEA ceased and the transfer of its activities to other Agencies took 
effect as from 1 April 202158. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

1)  In  order  to  improve  efficiency,  a  careful  consideration  is  needed  before  outsourcing 
the administrative tasks linked to politically sensitive topics. The tasks delegated to the 
Agency should  match both  its mandate and the  competencies of its staff. Clarity in  the 
definition of roles and responsibilities is crucial. 

The memorandum of understanding of successor executive agencies should be screened 
to  this  purpose,  also  clarifying  the  extent  to  which  these  should  be  involved  in  the 
drafting of tender specifications for procurement procedures. 

2)  The  implementation  of  the  high-level  missions  by  the  relevant  executive  agency 
(REA)59 under the next multiannual financial framework should be closely monitored and 
one should establish a clear framework for the cooperation between the Commission and 
the executive agency. 

3)  As  a  good  practice,  when  managing    both  grants  and  procurements,  as  well  as 
executing  other  specific  tasks,  it  may  be  relevant  to  differentiate  the  standard  financial 
management  indicators  (e.g.  time-to-inform,  time-to-grant,  time-to-pay,  execution  of 
budget appropriations) relating to grants and procurement, as well as developing agency-
specific  indicators  (e.g.  in  relation  to  the  provision  of  feedback  to  policy).  This  would 
make  it  possible  to  better  measure  the  performance  of  agencies,  and  to  improve  the 
execution of the Commission’s supervision and monitoring function. 

4) To the extent possible, the successor agencies of CHAFEA (REA, EISMEA, HaDEA) 
should consider  exploiting the possibilities for  further simplification  and harmonisation 
suggested by the interinstitutional task force on simplification, in particular harmonising 
the  procedures  for  grant  management,  standardising  the  approach  to  procurements,  and 
using simplified cost options. These measures could allow the harmonisation of rules and 
procedures across different programmes, reducing administrative burden on applicants or 
beneficiaries, and achieving further efficiency gains. 

5)  To  streamline  reporting  of  the different  funding  instruments  and  in  line  with  the 
delegation  instruments,  a  good  practice  for  agencies  is  to  report  periodically  to  their 
steering committees on a set of indicators that measure implementation performance and 
contribute to the Commission's supervision and monitoring role. The feedback to policy 
methods  should  be  further  developed,  and  steps  taken  to  provide  timely  information  to 
the parent Directorates-General. 

59   The successor agency of CHAFEA for implementation of the Programmes delegated by the Directorate-General for Agriculture 

and Rural Development, for the period 2021-2027. 

43 

 
 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead Parent Directorate-General: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 

Parent  Directorates-General:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Directorate-General for 
Health  and  Food  Safety,  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 

This evaluation of CHAFEA’s operations had a following scope: 

-  The reference period of the evaluation ran from January 2017 to March 2021. 
This evaluation assessed the performance of CHAFEA, with the cut-off date of 
31 March 2021. 

-  The  scope  of  the  evaluation  covered  programmes  managed  by  CHAFEA 
between  2017  and  2021:  the  Public  Health  Programme  2014-2020  (HP),  The 
Better Training for Safer Food initiative (BTSF), Consumer Programme 2014-
2020 (CP) and the Promotion of Agriculture Products programme (AGRIP). 

-  The current generation of agencies established within the Multiannual Financial 
Framework (Multiannual Financial Framework) 2021-2027 is outside the scope 
of this evaluation. The evaluation team have, however, taken into account the 
main developments that have occurred since 1 April 2021 only with regard to 
formulating relevant conclusions and recommendations. 

Knowledge  from  the  present  evaluation  will  inform  internal  decision-making  in 
CHAFEA’s  successor  executive  agencies,  namely  the  Health  and  Digital  Executive 
Agency  (HaDEA),  the  Research  Executive  Agency  (REA),  the  European  Innovation 
Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) as well as their parent Directorates-
General  with  regard  to  possible  improvements  to  the  implementation  of  legacy 
programmes and the next generation of programmes by the Commission. 

Furthermore,  the  results  of  the  present  evaluation  will  be  useful  for  accountability 
purposes.  The  final  evaluation  reports  regarding  the  performance  of  the  six  agencies 
will  allow  the  Commission  to  report  the  results  of  the  retrospective  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis  to  the  budgetary  authority,  while  informing  various  European  Union 
institutions on the value of cost  savings achieved as a result of the  executive agency 
scenario compared with the costs of in-house management by the Commission, as well 
as  identifying  potential  areas  for  improvement.  The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  be 
communicated to the Steering Committees of the six current agencies, to the European 
Parliament, to the Council, and to the European Court of Auditors. 

The evaluation of CHAFEA was part of the evaluation of all the six agencies, which 
was  made  in  a  coordinated  manner  based  on  a  supporting  study  carried  out  by  an 
external contractor (PPMI Consortium). The preparations for the evaluation started in 
2022,  when  an  Interservice  group  was  set  up  by  all  lead  parent  Directorates-General 
and the concerned central services (Directorate-General for budget and the Secretariat-
General).  The  group  meetings  (i.e.  6)  were  chaired  by  the  Common  Implementation 
Centre,  set  up  within  the  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  who  also 
ensured the secretariat. The evaluation of each agency was led by the respective parent 
Directorate-General  (PLAN/2022/1912).  The  Commission  also  launched  a  ‘call  for 

44 

 
 
evidence’  on  10 March  2023  on  its  ‘Have  your  say’  portal.  The  call  was  open  for 
feedback on agencies activities until 7 April 2023. 

The  methodology  used  for  the  evaluation  was  consistent  across  the  agencies  in 
accordance  with  the  criteria  provided  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation 
guidelines. The assessment of the evaluation criteria ‘EU added value’, i.e. why the EU 
should  act,  was  not  considered  relevant  as  each  agency  carries  out  tasks  which  the 
Commission transferred to it. The EU added value of the programmes that each agency 
manages is assessed in the context of the programme evaluations. 

Evidence was taken from sources such as the Commission databases, annual reporting 
exercises,  adopted  decisions.  The  supporting  study  was  prepared  using  a  mixed-
methods  approach  at  the  levels  of  methodologies  and  methods  and  worked  on  a 
qualitative methodological approach (based on documentary review and desk research, 
interviews,  answers  to  open-ended  survey  questions  and  qualitative  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis)  combined  with  a  quantitative  methodological  approach  (based  on 
administrative  and  monitoring  data,  surveys  and  quantitative  Cost-Benefit  Analysis), 
as detailed in Annex II. 

45 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Short description of methodology 

The evaluation was supported by a study carried out by an external contractor. The study 
covered  the  evaluation  of  the  six  Executive  Agencies  (INEA,  EACEA,  EASME, 
ERCEA,  CHAFEA  and  REA)  in  the  period  between  2017/2018  and  March  2021  in  a 
coordinated manner, based on the same methodology. The study was structured around a 
series of evaluation questions outlined in Annex. 

General Approach applied to the six agencies 

The  evaluation  followed  an  evidence-based  and  mixed-methods  approach,  using  both 
qualitative and quantitative data to answer evaluation questions. A holistic organisational 
model  based  on  the  CAF  2013  was  applied  to  understand  the  relationships  between 
different factors in the executive agencies. An extensive consultation strategy involving 
surveys,  interviews  with  stakeholders  and  call  for  evidence  gathered  information  and 
perspectives  on  the  agencies’  performance.  Triangulation  of  data  sources  strengthened 
the validity of the findings. The mixed-method approach was used based on the nature of 
evaluation questions and issues. 

The  mixed-method  approach  is  defined  as  the  coordinated  use  of  more  than  one  social 
science paradigm, methodology and/or method in order to improve the understanding of 
the phenomena under investigation. The mixed-method approach connected: 

- 

- 

a qualitative approach, based on documentary review and desk research, interviews, 
answers to open-ended survey questions, and a qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis; 
a quantitative approach, based on administrative and monitoring data, surveys, and a 
quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis. 

These  methodological  approaches  to  mixing  methods  were  used  in  a  complementary 
manner,  i.e.  the  results  of  the  quantitative  methods  were  used  to  enhance  the 
understanding of the qualitative results and vice versa. These methods were applied in a 
differentiated manner, according to the nature of the evaluation questions and the issues 
outlined.  While  all  the  questions  and  issues  were  analysed  both  qualitatively  and 
quantitatively, in answering some of the evaluation questions, greater focus was given to 
the qualitative methodological approach, while other questions were addressed primarily 
by relying on quantitative evidence. 

Before drafting  the final report, conclusions and recommendations were  discussed with 
agencies  and  their  lead  parent  Directorates-General.  In  addition  to  the  overall 
methodology  approach,  there  were  agency  specific  strategies  used  given  their 
specificities. 

Organisational model of the evaluation of the agencies 

The evaluation  followed  a holistic approach to  organisational analysis,  which identifies 
all  important  elements  of  an  organisation’  activities,  and  the  general  relationships 
between them. To properly organise a descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive study of 

46 

 
 
 
the  agencies,  it  is  necessary  to  identify  the  main  sets  of  factors  operating  in  each 
organisation’s  context  of  organisations,  as  well  as  the  enablers  (causes)  and  results  of 
organisational  performance,  and  to  link  them  together  into  a  single  framework.  To 
achieve this, an organisational model that was developed on the basis of the model used 
in the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), 201360. Was applied. 

The structure of the organisational model used in the external study comprises three sets 
of organisational factors: (1) regulatory and operational framework, (2) enablers and (3) 
results. All of these organisational factors are integrated into to the evaluation questions 
and their operationalisation. 

Methods and data to inform the evaluation findings 

Documentary review and desk research 

The documentary review and desk research carried out for the evaluation included three 
types  of  information:  documents  relating  to  the  legal  basis  for  the  establishment  of 
CHAFEA;  information  connected  with  CHAFEA’s  relations  with  parent  Directorates-
General and the delegation of programmes;  and  data on CHAFEA’s financial and non-
financial performance, as well as its programme management, together with the  contact 
data  required  for  the  implementation  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  strategy.  Taken 
together,  these  activities  result  in  more  than  90  files  being  provided  to  or  directly 
accessed by the study team. 

The synthesised results of the activities above were used to inform the report’s findings 
and  the  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions  provided.  In  addition,  desk  research  was 
instrumental for the application of other research methods, including the conceptual and 
technical  development  of  interview  and  survey  questionnaires,  as  well  as  the 
implementation of Cost-Benefit Analysis activities (i.e. collecting and systematising the 
key  data  necessary  for  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  parts  of  the  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis). 

Areas for in-depth study 

To shed light on the success stories and lessons learned as a result of key developments 
during  the  reference  period,  an  in-depth  analysis  of  CHAFEA’s  performance  was 
prepared in two cases. Building on the results of the desk research, the following areas 
were selected for in-depth study: 

-  Management of the transition from CHAFEA to successor agencies. Even though 
the  decision  to  terminate  CHAFEA  was  not  welcomed  unanimously  within  the 
Commission and the Agency, the process of transition to its successor agencies was 
implemented in  a timely manner  and ensured business continuity. While one of the 
possible explanations behind this smooth transition process may relate to the transfer 
of highly experienced staff, it is also worth exploring the role of managerial practices 
applied during the transition process. 

-  Organisation  by  thematic  portfolios,  associated  with  different  funding 
instruments.  The  diverse  nature  of  the  Agency’s  portfolio  resulted  in  the  different 

60   The  CAF  Resource  Centre  of  the  European  Institute  of  Public  Administration,  CAF  2013:  Improving  Public  Organisations 
through Self-Assessment, p. 9. 

47 

 
 
units of CHAFEA being organised quite different ways. For instance, in some units, 
work was arranged according to different policy areas, which allowed for increased 
specialisation  (especially  in  the  area  of  public  health).  In  other  units,  work  was 
grouped together according to funding instruments. This divergent work organisation 
was subject to more in-depth exploration as to its benefits and drawbacks. 

The analysis of in-depth study areas is based on structured and synthesised data derived 
from the stakeholder consultations, documentary review and desk research. A key added 
value  of  these  study  areas  is  that  they  pool  together  key  findings  on  certain  important 
areas  of  CHAFEA’s  performance.  Analysis  of  these  cases  provided  evidence  of  the 
benefit  to  the  implementation  of  any  future  reorganisations  and  presents  insights  into 
possible synergies across the agencies. 

Interview programme 

An extensive interview  programme  carried out for the  evaluation  targeted two types of 
key  CHAFEA  stakeholders:  (1)  the  Commission  and  former  CHAFEA  staff;  and  (2) 
CHAFEA’s  beneficiaries  and  service  providers,  as  well  as  unsuccessful  applicants  and 
external experts. A total of 25 interviews were conducted with 27 interviewees, between 
August 2022 and March 2023. 

The  distribution  of  respondents  reflected  the  diversity  of  the  portfolio  of  programmes 
managed by CHAFEA, and the positions of all parent Directorates-General. 

Survey programme 

Two interlinked surveys were carried out, addressing the following target groups: 

-  Survey A: CHAFEA beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants.  

This  survey  addressed  all  beneficiaries  of  the  HP,  CP  and  AGRIP  programmes,  as 
well as unsuccessful applicants to calls launched under the 2017-2020 AWPs of the 
HP  and  AGRIP  programmes.  Due  to  their  small  sample  size,  procurement 
beneficiaries  under  the  BTSF  were  not  involved  in  the  survey.  As  a  result,  54 
responses  to  the  survey  were  received  from  CHAFEA’s  beneficiaries,  and  19  from 
unsuccessful applicants. This constituted a response rate of 21% for beneficiaries, and 
12%  for  unsuccessful  applicants,  resulting  in  an  overall  response  rate  of  17%  for 
Survey A. 

-  Survey B: external experts contracted by CHAFEA.  

This  survey  targeted  all  external  experts  contracted  by  CHAFEA  during  the  period 
2017-2020.  A  total  of  69  responses,  corresponding  to  a  response  rate  of  39%,  was 
received. 

-  Due  to  the  low  response  rate  achieved  in  comparison  to  that  in  the  previous 
evaluation of the Agency, partial responses were also used to inform the evaluation. 

48 

 
 
 
Cost-benefit analysis 

The study supporting the evaluation presented the results of a quantitative  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis – in particular, the workload analysis and evaluation of key workload drivers, 
assumptions  and  productivity  indicators  (operational  budget  delegated  to  the  Agency, 
number of proposals, number of projects and average grant size, etc.) – underpinning the 
workload  analysis  and  staffing  estimates  in  the  2013  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  and/or 
Specific  financial  statement  (Specific  Financial  Statement),  compared  with  the  actual 
situation.  It  also  provides  conclusions  regarding  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  executive 
agency scenario, and the actual savings due to  externalisation.  During  the period 2017-
2020,  the  actual  cost  savings  deriving  from  a  difference  in  cost  between  the  executive 
agency  scenario  and  the  in-house  scenario  amounted  to  EUR 4.1  million.  According  to 
the  results  of  the  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  carried  out  for  the  evaluation,  the  actual  cost 
savings  achieved  deriving  from  this  cost  difference  were  much  lower  for  CHAFEA  – 
both in absolute and relative terms – than for all other agencies of the Commission. 

Limitations of the methodological approach and findings 

The  evaluation  of  CHAFEA  was  carried  out  according  to  the  Commission’s  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines.  It  is  based  on  reliable  evidence  covering  the  three  evaluation 
criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  in  CHAFEA’s  operations  during  the 
evaluation period. The results and conclusions are limited to the evaluation evidence and 
findings  regarding  the  business  processes,  management  practices  and  performance  of 
CHAFEA,  without  providing  any  assessment  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  the 
Agency. The implementation of these programmes and their results has been assessed in 
separate evaluations; the findings of these evaluations were used, to the extent relevant, 
in the external study team to the present evaluation. Overall, the evaluation of CHAFEA 
provides robust findings built on the triangulation of high-quality data collected through 
a documentary review, desk research, a Cost-Benefit Analysis, stakeholder consultation 
activities (the survey programme and interviews), and an analysis of the in-depth study 
areas identified in the previous section. 

Indicators  and  assessment  parameters  (as  well  as  sources  of  information  and  methods) 
were  assigned  to  each  evaluation  criterion  and  question.  In  the  context  of  the  external 
study, the evaluation questions were operationalised through the collection and analysis 
of both quantitative and qualitative data, thus allowing  data triangulation and providing 
the  suitable  mix  of  evidence  to  respond  to  the  evaluation  questions.  In  addition,  the 
evaluation was continuously supported by HaDEA, which was able to provide complete 
and  comparable  data  regarding  CHAFEA’s  performance  and  management  during  the 
evaluation  period.  Lastly,  various  versions  of  the  Report  were  reviewed  by  the 
Commission and its contractor during the different stages of development of the external 
study. 

However, a number of challenges were encountered that imposed certain limitations on 
the  results  of  the  evaluation.  First,  response  rates  to  the  surveys  were  low,  standing  at 
17% overall for beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants (compared with 23-25% for the 
previous evaluation) and 39% for external experts (compared with 56% for the previous 
evaluation). The specific measures employed by the external contractor in disseminating 
these  surveys  had  only  a  minor  influence  on  response  rates.  Thus,  the  lower  level  of 
interest  on  the  part  of  survey  respondents  could  mostly  be  explained  by  survey  fatigue 
among respondents, and by the closure of CHAFEA. Furthermore, the profile of survey 
respondents  did  not  in  all  cases  fully  match  the  overall  population  (e.g.  unsuccessful 

49 

 
applicants to CP were not involved in Survey A, due to a lack of information regarding 
their contact details in the datasets received). 

To mitigate the limitations of the survey data, the external study relied strongly on data 
triangulation – i.e. where available, qualitative data were used to support the assessment 
of  parameters  that  had  initially  been  foreseen  as  being  evaluated  (only)  quantitatively. 
For  example,  due  to  the  limited  number  of  procurement  beneficiaries  under  the  BTSF 
(fewer  than  10  during  the  evaluation  period),  it  was  decided  to  involve  them  in  the 
interview programme rather than invite them to participate in  the survey. To the extent 
possible,  analysis  of  the  evaluation  questions  was  also  informed  by  a  comparison  with 
the results of the previous evaluation (covering the period 2014-2016). The approach of 
triangulation  ensured  the  robustness  and  reliability  of  the  data  and  information  used  to 
draw up the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. 

In addition, due to the nature of the questions involved, the answers to certain evaluation 
questions relied largely  on desk research and interview data. To mitigate this issue, the 
contractor  for  the  external  study  developed  an  extensive  programme  of  interviews 
involving  the  Commission  and  CHAFEA  staff  from  various  levels  of  management  as 
well  as  experts,  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  to  various  programmes 
managed  by  the  Agency.  Furthermore,  the  evaluation  of  CHAFEA’s  effectiveness, 
efficiency  and  coherence  includes  clear  explanations  of  the  degree  to  which  the 
evaluation statements are based on opinion, facts or other type of evidence. 

Some  limitations  also  relate  to  the  timing  of  the  evaluation  (after  the  closure  of 
CHAFEA). Despite the assistance of HaDEA’s representatives, there were some delays 
in  the  provision  of  data,  and  a  very  small  number  of  cases  in  which  data  were 
inaccessible. Furthermore, the closure of CHAFEA caused a certain loss of institutional 
memory,  which  may  have  negatively  affected  the  ability  of  some  stakeholders  to 
participate  in  the  survey  and  interview  programmes.  Due  to  the  termination  of 
CHAFEA’s activities, some of the prospective evaluation questions were not applicable 
to  the  evaluation  of  this  Agency.  As  a  result,  depending  on  the  question  concerned,  a 
focus was place on adjusting the gathered evidence to the needs of CHAFEA’s successor 
agencies and the overall landscape of the Commission’s agencies. 

50 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

The detailed methodology applied for the evaluation is available in Section 3 and Annex 2 of 
the study supporting  the evaluation61. The  detailed answers to  the  evaluation  questions are 
provided in Section 4 of the study supporting the evaluation62. 

61 https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-supporting-evaluation-chafea-eacea-easme-ercea-inea-rea-2017-2021-final-report-chafea_en 
. 

62 https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-supporting-evaluation-chafea-eacea-easme-ercea-inea-rea-2017-2021-final-report-chafea_en 
. 

51 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

The benefits and costs are detailed in the Cost Benefit Analysis in Section 4.2 and annex V. 

52 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHAFEA 

Businesses  

Administrations  

Summary 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 

Cost savings: 
Agency scenario vs 
in-house scenario 
CHAFEA = EUR 4.1 million 

High satisfaction from beneficiaries 
and other stakeholders  
Reduction of the administrative 
burden through simplification/ High 
staff satisfaction and engagement  

1.  Background to the quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis 

A detailed Cost-Benefit Analysis of all the agencies (including CHAFEA) was conducted in 2013 
for  the  2014-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  This  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  compared  the 
following four scenarios, based on varying levels of delegation and the distribution of programmes 
between different agencies: 

-  An  in-house  scenario,  which  assumed  new  programmes  would  be  managed  by  the 
Commission, while the agencies would remain responsible for the delivery of legacy work 
(2007-2013 multiannual financial framework programmes); 
-  An initial delegation scenario defined by the Commission; 
-  Two  alternative  delegation  scenarios  with  different  options  for  delegation  among  the 

agencies. 

A  description  of  CHAFEA’s  programme  portfolio  for  the  2014-2020  period  under  different 
scenarios is presented in the table below. 

Table 1. CHAFEA’s 2014-2020 programme portfolio under different Cost-Benefit Analysis 2013 
scenarios 
Initial scenario 

Alternative scenario 1  

Alternative scenario 2 

Consumer programme 2014-2020 
Public Health programme 2014-2020 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 

Parts of Horizon 2020 – Food security, 
sustainable agriculture, marine and 
maritime research and bio-economy 

Parts of Horizon 2020 SME instrument 

Consumer programme 2014-2020 
Public Health programme 2014-2020 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 
Parts of Horizon 2020 SME instrument 

Changes compared with the initial 
scenario 

Allocation  to  REA of parts  of  Horizon 
2020  –  Food  security,  sustainable 
agriculture,  marine 
and  maritime 
research and bio-economy 

Consumer programme 2014-2020 
Public Health programme 2014-2020 
Food safety training measures 
Agriculture promotion measures 

Changes compared with the initial 
scenario 

Allocation to REA of parts of Horizon 
2020 – Food security, sustainable 
agriculture, marine and maritime research 
and bio-economy 

Centralised  management  of 
the  entire 
Horizon 2020 SME instrument by EASME 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency on the basis of the Cost-Benefit Analysis. 

It  was  concluded  that  alternative  scenario  2  was  the  most  efficient  in  terms  of  cost  savings  and 
qualitative  benefits.  This  estimated  that  to  manage  EUR 13 267  million  (an  increase  of  127% 
compared with 2013), the six agencies would need 2 887 full-time equivalents in 2020 (an increase 
of  71%,  i.e.  an  additional  1 200  full-time  equivalents  compared  with  2013).  This  compares 
favourably with the ‘in-house scenario’, which would require 3 088 full-time equivalents to manage 
the same programmes. In general, the agencies would also benefit from economies of scale as they 

53 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
became larger. However, it was also noted that due to its small size, CHAFEA would not be able to 
fully  reap  economies  of  scale  in  its  operations,  but  that  these  would  be  more  than  offset  by  the 
efficiency  gains  realised  by  other  agencies.  To  achieve  further  efficiency  gains,  the  Commission 
also  proposed  a  few  adjustments  stemming  from  an  improved  level  of  productivity  and  aimed  at 
containing  administrative  costs  through  a  5%  staff  reduction  (Table  2).  The  new  mandate  almost 
twice doubled the ratio of budget ‘per head’ in the case of CHAFEA – from EUR 1.36 in 2013 to 
2.49 million in 2020. 

Table 2. Budget managed and human resources of CHAFEA, compared with all executive agencies 
between 2013 and 2020 

Executive 
Agency 

Budget 
managed 
in 2013, 
million 
EUR 

full-time 
equivalents 
in 2013 

2013 
budget 
per 
head, 
million 
EUR 

Budget 
to be 
managed 
by 
Agency 
in 2020, 
million 
EUR 

Envisioned 
full-time 
equivalents 
in 2020 

Envisioned 
full-time 
equivalents 
in 2020 
(adjusted) 

Budget 
per 
head in 
2020, 
million 
EUR 

Budget 
per head 
in 2020, 
million 
EUR 
(adjusted) 

CHAFEA 

68 

50 

1.36 

202 

81 

79 

2.49 

2.56 

All 
agencies 

5 846 

1 687 

3.47 

13 267 

2 887 

2 630 

4.60 

5.46 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on Communication to the Commission on the 
delegation of the management of the 2014-2020 programmes to executive agencies (SEC(2013)493). 

These adjusted results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis were used in the Specific Financial Statement63. 
With regard to the forecasts of the administrative budget, the  Specific Financial Statement differs 
from the Cost-Benefit Analysis in the following respects: 

-  The  average  staff  costs  and  overheads  for  2014  were  updated  using  the  figures  from 
CHAFEA’s draft budget, whereas for 2015-2020 the average cost estimations provided in 
the  2013  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  were  used.  It  must  be  noted  that  such  an  approach  was 
inconsistent  –  there  were  no  objective  reasons  indicating  that  in  2015  and  subsequent 
years,  CHAFEA’s  average  staff  costs  would  fall  by  18%  for  temporary  agents  and  by 
more  than  30%  for  contract  agents,  compared  with  2014.  Consequently,  such  an 
underestimation  of  CHAFEA’s  average  staff  costs  resulted  in  the  actual  budget  of 
CHAFEA  for  2015  and  onwards  being  consistently  higher  than  that  estimated  in  the 
Specific Financial Statement. 

-  The  costs  in  the  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  were  calculated  at  constant  2013  prices  (i.e. 
neutralising  the effect  of inflation). However, in  the  Specific Financial Statement, these 
estimates  were used as  current  prices without any further indexation.  In  real  terms, this 
constituted another reduction in the administrative budget. 

63  Specific  Financial  Statement  for  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  establishing  the  ‘Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive 

Agency’ and repealing Decision 2004/858/EC, final version, Dec 2014. 

54 

 
 
Figure 1. Number of staff estimated under different delegation scenarios 

90,0

85,0

80,0

75,0

70,0

65,0

60,0

55,0

50,0

45,0

40,0

71,9

69,6

67,9

64,8

62,8

61,9

52,4

50,5

50,5

54,3

51,9

51,5

86,0

83,0

80,9

83,3

80,4

77,9

77,2

74,7

72,9

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

In-house

Executive agency - CBA

Executive agency - SFS

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific 
Financial Statement. Note: includes staff at the Commission to ensure supervision of and coordination with CHAFEA. 

The  table  below  summarises  the  assumptions  used  in  the  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  and  Specific 
Financial Statement for both scenarios (in-house and Agency). 

Table 3. Assumptions used in ex ante Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific Financial Statement 

Assumptions Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Staffing mix 
European Commission: 

▪  Establishment plan posts / temporary agents (temporary agents) – 70%; 
▪  External personnel / contract agents  – 30%. 

For externalisation scenario, all Commission staff for the supervision and coordination 
with CHAFEA are temporary agents. 

CHAFEA: 

▪  Establishment plan posts – 25%; 
▪  External personnel – 75%. 

Number of staff 
See 
Figure 1 

Average cost assumptions (per employee) 
European Commission: 

▪  Establishment plan posts – EUR 108 000; 
▪  External personnel (contract agents) – EUR 47 000; 
▪  External personnel / seconded national experts (SNEs) –EUR 55 000; 
▪  Overheads – EUR 23 000. 

CHAFEA 

55 

Assumptions Specific 
Financial Statement 

(Changes compared to 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 
assumptions) 

Average cost assumptions 
for CHAFEA were modified 
for 2014: 
temporary agents – 
EUR 129 650; 
contract agents – 
EUR 71 700; 
Overheads EUR 19 150. 

For 2015-2020, the average 
cost assumptions were not 
modified. 

Minor changes related to the 
number of staff (for detailed 
information, please see 
Figure 1). 

Cost estimations for Title III 
expenditure (programme 
support expenditure) were 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assumptions Cost-Benefit Analysis 

▪  Establishment plan posts – EUR 106 294; 
▪  External personnel – EUR 49 672; 
▪  Overheads – EUR 20 344. 

Assumptions Specific 
Financial Statement 

(Changes compared to 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 
assumptions) 

added. 

Average  cost  assumptions  are  based  on  Directorate-General  for  budget  estimations. 
Costs relating to programme support64 (Title III expenditure) have not been included in 
the calculations, as these are likely to be the same across all scenarios. As such, these 
do not affect the cost difference between the different scenarios. 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific 
Financial Statement. 

2.  Actual staffing and costs of CHAFEA 

During  the  2017-2020  period  of  operations,  the  administrative  budget  actually  implemented  by 
CHAFEA65  amounted  to  EUR 41.4  million  and  was  higher  than  the  Specific  Financial  Statement 
estimates (see table below). This primarily related to the underestimation of CHAFEA’s staff costs. 
The average staff costs were adjusted for 2014 taking into account CHAFEA’s draft budget 2014, 
but  for 2015 and further years the  Cost-Benefit  Analysis estimates  were  used without any further 
adjustments. The Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific Financial Statement estimations were based on 
the EU contribution alone, whereas CHAFEA’s  administrative budget  also included contributions 
from EEA/EFTA and third countries (EUR 0.59 million during the period 2017-2020) to manage an 
additional  operational  budget.  However,  contributions  from  EEA/EFTA  and  third  countries 
constitute  around  1.4%  of  CHAFEA’s  total  administrative  budget,  and  do  not  change  the  overall 
results of the analysis. 

The  costs  in  the  2013  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  were  calculated  at  constant  2013  prices  (i.e. 
neutralising the effect of inflation), but in the Specific Financial Statement these estimations were 
used as current prices without any further adjustment for inflation. To analyse this, the table below 
also  presents  a  comparison  of  the  Specific  Financial  Statement-estimated  and  CHAFEA’s  actual 
budget,  in  which  the  Specific  Financial  Statement  estimations  were  adjusted  to  reflect  current 
prices. The current prices were established using a fixed 2% annual deflator starting from 201466. 

64  

Such costs include experts, studies, representation and external meeting expenses; missions and related costs; audit expenses; expenses relating 
to information, publications and communication; translation expenses; operations-related IT costs. 

65   Based on executed commitment appropriations. 
66   A 2% annual deflator is provided for in Article 6(2) of the MFF Regulation. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. CHAFEA administrative budget 2018-2020, million EUR 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 2017-2020 

4.368 

4.596 

4.907 

5.057 

18.928 

5.352 

1.383 

6.118 

1.465 

6.832 

1.546 

7.204 

1.607 

1.366 

2.730 

1.364 

2.867 

1.422 

2.971 

1.550 

3.046 

2.550 

8.481 

2.758 

8.928 

2.947 

9.424 

1.975 

9.710 

9.269 

0.144 

10.240 

0.143 

11.201 

10.729 

0.150 

0.154 

25.506 

6.001 

5.702 

11.614 

10.230 

36.543 

41.438 

0.591 

Administrative 
budget 
I. 

Staff 

Title 

Related 

Expenditure 

Specific 

Financial 

Statement 

Actual 

Title 

II. 

Specific 

Infrastructure  and 

Financial 

Operating 

Expenditure 

Statement 

Actual 

Title 

III. 

Specific 

Programme 

Support 

Expenditure 

Total 

Financial 

Statement 

Actual 

Specific 

Financial 

Statement 

Actual 

EEA/EFTA 

contribution 

and 

participation 

of 

candidate 

countries 

and/or 

third 

countries 

Actual 

(EU 

9.125 

10.096 

11.051 

10.575 

40.847 

contribution) 

Savings 

(Specific 

Financial 

-0.788 

-1.312 

-1.777 

-1.019 

Statement-Actual) 

Savings 

(Specific 

Financial 

-0.644 

-1.168 

-1.627 

-0.865 

-4.895 

-4.304 

Statement-Actual 

EU 

contribution) 

Specific 

Financial 

Statement 

9.180 

9.857 

10.613 

11.154 

40.804 

adjusted  for  current  prices  using 

2% annual deflator  

Savings 

(Specific 

Financial 

-0.089 

-0.382 

-0.588 

0.425 

-0.634 

Statement  adjusted  for  current 

prices-Actual) 

Savings 

(Specific 

Financial 

0.055 

-0.239 

-0.438 

0.579 

-0.043 

Statement  adjusted  for  current 

prices-Actual EU contributions) 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on Specific Financial Statement, final annual 
accounts and the draft general budget of the EU. 

57 

 
 
 
Staff-related expenditure (Title I) was substantially higher than the initial estimates. This related 
to the underestimated average staff costs in the Cost-Benefit Analysis and in the Specific Financial 
Statement  for  2015  and  subsequent  years.  Such  deviation  reflected  unsustainable  initial  Cost-
Benefit  Analysis/Specific  Financial  Statement  assumptions:  1)  as  noted  before,  the  average  costs 
were  not  adjusted  for  inflation,  and  2)  the  average  staff  costs  for  CHAFEA  were  based  on  the 
weighted  average  staff  costs  of  all  agencies,  disregarding  the  fact  that  the  actual  staff  costs  for 
CHAFEA were higher. The higher level of salaries at CHAFEA compared with other agencies was 
related to several parameters: 

- 

Its  location  in  Luxembourg  –  most  staff  members  at  the  Agency  were  expatriates,  and 
were entitled to corresponding benefits; 

-  CHAFEA  was  a  small  agency  that  managed  four  unrelated  programmes.  To  manage 
actions  with  high  policy  relevance  within  these  programmes,  it  was  important  to  have 
qualified administrators at the FGIV level. Furthermore, due to the small size of each unit 
and  the  necessity  to  ensure  business  continuity  in  each  programme,  the  proportion  of 
FGIV agents in CHAFEA was higher than in many other agencies. This had an impact on 
CHAFEA’s average staff cost for contract agents. Due to higher living costs, the Agency 
had to offer higher-grade positions to attract suitable candidates with the right profile to 
manage these policy-relevant  actions.  It  was known that the FGI salary  was lower than 
the minimum legal salary in Luxembourg and the FGII salary was only slightly higher, 
making  recruitment  within  these  contract  agents  categories  somewhat  difficult  in 
Luxembourg; 

-  Due  to  CHAFEA’s  small  size,  the  impact  of  higher-salaried  staff  (middle  and  top 

management) on the average salary was higher than for other agencies. 

The issue of higher staff costs was highlighted during the previous evaluation of CHAFEA and the 
corresponding retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis. During the 2017-2020 period, the actual average 
staff  costs  for  CHAFEA  were  higher  than  the  average  costs  across  the  Commission,  both  for 
temporary agents and contract agents (Table 6). 

The  actual  number  of  the  CHAFEA  staff67  financed  from  the  EU  contribution  was  within  the 
Specific  Financial  Statement-estimated  range  in  2017-2020  (as  indicated  in  Table  5  below).  The 
composition of staff (the ratio between temporary agents and contract agents) corresponded to the 
Specific Financial Statement estimates. 

Table 5. Actual and estimated number of the CHAFEA staff 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Planned  No  of  the  CHAFEA  staff  according  to  the  Specific 

Financial Statement  

temporary agents 

contract agents 

Total 

Authorised posts during the budgetary procedure 

temporary agents 

17 

49 

66 

17 

18 

53 

71 

18 

20 

56 

76 

20 

20 

59 

79 

20 

67   Actual number of staff at the end of the year. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contract agents 

Total  

Actual (occupied at the end of the year) 

temporary agents 

contract agents 

Total  

4868 

65 

13 

48 

61 

53 

71 

16 

50 

66 

56 

76 

19 

56 

75 

59 

79 

19 

58 

77 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the Specific Financial Statement, final annual 
accounts and the draft general budget of the EU. 

Infrastructure and operating expenditure (overheads, Title II) was lower than was estimated in 
the  Specific  Financial  Statement  (~95%  of  the  Specific  Financial  Statement  estimates  in  2017-
2020).  The  actual  average  overheads  of  CHAFEA  were  also  lower  than  the  average  costs  for  the 
Commission (Table 6). Similarly, the actual programme support expenditure (Title III) remained 
below the Specific Financial Statement estimates. 

Table 6. Estimated and actual average staff costs and overheads, EUR 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Average  costs  set  by  Directorate-General  for  budget  for  estimates  of  human  resources  and  overheads  in  legislative 
financial statements  
Average staff cost: temporary agents 
Average staff cost: contract agents 
Overheads 
Actual average costs69 of CHAFEA 
Average staff cost: temporary agents 
Average staff cost: contract agents 
Overheads 

115 000 
47 000 
23 000 

143 826 
65 221 
22 397 

138 472 
68 447 
18 960 

123 000 
52 000 
25 000 

140 256 
70 754 
20 662 

119 000 
50 000 
24 000 

144 928 
70 058 
20 130 

125 000 
55 000 
25 000 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

3.  Cost-effectiveness  of  the  executive  agency  scenario  and  actual  savings  due  to 

externalisation 

To assess whether the conclusions of the ex ante assessment (the estimates of savings provided in 
the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific Financial Statement) are still valid when compared with the 
actual situation, and what the overall possible savings are, the following approach was adopted: 

-  We  drew  upon  data  on  the  actual  performance  of  CHAFEA  (actual  execution  of  the 

administrative budget, actual staffing, etc.) for the executive agency scenario; 

-  To ensure comparability and validity of results, we followed the assumptions laid down in the 
Cost-Benefit  Analysis  and  Specific  Financial  Statement,  and  provided  estimates  of  the 
comparable  ‘actual’  in-house  (Commission)  scenario  (the  comparator)  that  would  best  reflect 
the actual situation; 

-  Based on these estimates, we assessed whether the conclusions of the Cost-Benefit Analysis and 
Specific Financial Statement ex ante assessments are still valid when compared with the actual 
situation, and what the overall possible savings are. 

68   According to the 2017 draft general budget of the EU, in order to contribute financially to the Common Support Services provided by REA, one 

contract agent position must not be filled by CHAFEA in 2017, but only from 2018. 

69   Average staff costs include professional development and social expenditure. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To deconstruct the ‘actual’ in-house (Commission) scenario (the comparator), estimates were based 
on the following Cost-Benefit Analysis/Specific Financial Statement assumptions: 

-  The  number  and  composition  of  staff  at  the  Commission  and  CHAFEA  under  the  in-house 

scenario corresponds to the Specific Financial Statement estimations. 

-  Commission  staff  costs  and  overheads  correspond  to  the  average  costs  set  by  Directorate-
General for budget for the estimates of HR and overheads in legislative financial statements for 
the respective year (Table 6). 

-  CHAFEA’s  average  staff  costs  and  overheads  under  the  in-house  scenario  (for  legacy) 
correspond to the actual average CHAFEA’s staff costs and overheads in the respective year. 
-  Programme support expenditure (Title  III) remains  the same under both  the in-house scenario 

and the executive agency scenario. 

The  table  below  presents  the  results  of  the  analysis  of  the  estimated  actual  costs  of  the  in-house 
(Commission) scenario and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario. 

60 

 
 
 
 
Table 7. Estimated actual costs of the in-house (Commission) scenario and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario, EUR 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

Total 2017-2020 

In-house scenario  

Commission 

Title I. Staff related expenditure 

Establishment Plan Posts 

Contract Agents 

Title II. Infrastructure and operating expenditure 

Total Commission cost: 

CHAFEA 

Title I. Staff related expenditure 

Establishment Plan Posts 

Contract Agents 

Title II. Infrastructure and operating expenditure 

Total CHAFEA cost: 

TOTAL Titles I and II 

Title III. Programme support expenditure 

TOTAL COST 

Executive agency scenario  

CHAFEA 

63.9 

44.7 

19.2 

2 

0.5 

1.5 

6 042,900 

70.5 

6 933,600 

76.7 

7 801,100 

79.3 

8 239,500 

29 017,100 

5,140,500 

49.4 

5,878,600 

53.7 

6,605,100 

55.4 

6,925,000 

24 549,200 

902,400 

21.1 

1,055,000 

23.0 

1,196,000 

23.9 

1,314,500 

4 467,900 

1 469,700 

7 512,600 

169 744 

71,913 

97,831 

44 794 

214 538 

7 727,138 

2 550,339 

1 

1 

1 692,000 

8 625,600 

70 754 

70,754 

20 662 

91 416 

8 717,016 

2 758,096 

1 917,500 

9 718,600 

1 982,500 

7 061,700 

10 222,000 

36 078,800 

0 

240 498 

71 913 

168 585 

65 457 

305 954 

0 

10 222,000 

36 384,754 

1 975,000 

10 230 435 

0 

9 718,600 

2 947,000 

65.9 

10 277,477 

71.5 

11 475,112 

76.7 

12 665,600 

79.3 

12 197,000 

46 615,189 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title I. Staff related expenditure 

Establishment plan posts 

Contract agents 

Seconded national experts 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

No. 

Cost 

Total 2017-2020 

61 

13 

48 

5 352,207 

1,808,256 

2,903,588 

66 

16 

50 

6 117,793 

2,140,455 

3,213,838 

75 

19 

56 

6 832,000 

2,538,000 

3,559,000 

77 

19 

58 

7 205,000 

25 507,000 

2,669,000 

9 155,711 

3,805,000 

13 481,426 

Interim supportive agents and trainees 

Professional development and recruitment costs 

Title II. Infrastructure and operating expenditure 

Title III. Programme support expenditure 

351,883 

288,480 

1 366,223 

2 550,339 

336,000 

427,500 

1 363,715 

2 758,096 

368,000 

367,000 

1 422,000 

2 947,000 

0 

388,000 

1 443,883 

343,000 

1 425,980 

1 550,000 

5 701,938 

1 975,000 

10 230,435 

Total CHAFEA cost: 

Commission 

Title I. Staff-related expenditure 

Establishment plan posts 

Contract agents 

Title II. Infrastructure and operating expenditure 

Total Commission cost: 

TOTAL COST 

ESTIMATED SAVINGS 

9 268,769 

10 239,604 

11 201,000 

10 730,000 

41 439,373 

1.9 

1.9 

218 500 

218,500 

1.9 

1.9 

226 100 

226,100 

1.9 

1.9 

233 700 

233,700 

1.9 

1.9 

0 

43 700 

262 200 

0 

45 600 

271 700 

0 

47 500 

281 200 

237 500 

237,500 

0 

0 

915 800 

915 800 

0 

47 500 

184 300 

285 000 

1 100,100 

62.9 

9 530,969 

67.9 

10 511,304 

76.9 

11 482,200 

78.9 

11 015,000 

42 539,473 

3.0 

746 508 

3.6 

963 808 

-0.2 

1 183,400 

0.4 

1 182,000 

4 075,716 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The analysis shows that: 

-  The  overall  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario70  amounted  to  EUR 42.5  million 
during the period 2017-2020. To evaluate the extent to which the actual costs corresponded to 
the initial Specific Financial Statement estimates, it is important to follow the same assumptions 
that  produced  such  Specific  Financial  Statement  estimates.  The  Specific  Financial  Statement 
estimates  (EUR 37.5  million  for  the  period  2017-2020)  were  based  on  the  EU  contribution, 
whereas  CHAFEA’s  administrative  budget  also  included  contributions  from  EEA/EFTA  and 
third  countries  (EUR 0.59  million  during  the  period  2017-2020)  to  manage  an  additional 
operational  budget.  Consequently,  based  on  the  EU  contribution  alone,  the  actual  costs  of  the 
executive  agency scenario amounted to  EUR 41.9 million,  and were EUR 4.4 million  (11.8%) 
higher than the Specific Financial Statement estimates. This resulted from Title I ‘Staff-related 
expenditure’,  as  CHAFEA’s average staff costs were underestimated in  the 2013  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis. The average staff costs and overheads for 2014 were updated in the Specific Financial 
Statement using the figures from CHAFEA’s draft budget, whereas for 2015-2020 the average 
cost estimations provided in the 2013 Cost-Benefit Analysis were used (although there were no 
objective reasons indicating that in 2015 and subsequent years, CHAFEA’s average staff costs 
would  decrease  by  18%  for  temporary  agents  and  by  more  than  30%  for  contract  agents 
compared with 2014); 

-  The costs of the executive agency scenario were lower than the estimated costs of the in-house 
scenario. In 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a difference in cost between the 
executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 4.1 million (or 8.7% of 
the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). The volume of the actual cost savings deriving 
from this difference in cost constituted between 32% and 36% of the estimated costs under the 
in-house  scenario  for  all  other  agencies  of  the  Commission,  according  to  our  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis results. Our analysis indicates that, despite the fact that the executive agency scenario 
remained  more  cost-effective  than  the  in-house  scenario  in  the  case  of  CHAFEA,  due  to  the 
specificities  of  this  Agency,  the  financial  benefits  of  externalisation  were  more  limited  than 
those for other agencies; 

-  Comparing the savings initially estimated in the Specific Financial Statement and Cost-Benefit 
Analysis  with  the  actual  savings  from  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  CHAFEA,  we  found  that  the 
actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were 44.7% lower than the initial Specific Financial 
Statement estimates (EUR 4.1 million, compared with EUR 7.3 million), and 58.7% lower than 
the initial Cost-Benefit  Analysis estimates (EUR 4.1 million, compared with EUR 9.9 million) 
(Figure 2 and Figure 3). As forecast in the Specific Financial Statement and the ex ante Cost-
Benefit  Analysis,  savings  of  the  executive  agency  scenario  resulted  primarily  from  a  higher 
share of lower-cost external personnel employed within the executive agency. However, actual 
savings  were  limited  by  the  higher  actual  staff  costs  of  CHAFEA’s  temporary  agents  and 
contract agents when compared with the Commission’s estimated average staff costs. 

70  

Including the cost of coordination and monitoring by the Commission and the costs covered from EEA/EFTA and third-country contributions. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario for CHAFEA in 2017-2020, 
million EUR 

50,00

45,00

40,00

35,00

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

44,90

37,54

46,62

42,54

7,37

4,08

SFS estimations

Actual

Costs of the in-house scenario

Costs of the Executive Agency (EA) scenario

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

Figure 3. Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario for CHAFEA in 2017-2020 
(Title I and Title II expenditure), million EUR 

35,88

33,29

36,38

32,31

26,00

25,92

9,88

7,37

4,08

40,00

35,00

30,00

25,00

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00

CBA estimations

SFS estimations

Actual

Costs of the in-house scenario

Costs of the Executive Agency (EA) scenario

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

4.  Workload analysis 

The programme portfolio managed by CHAFEA during the evaluation period corresponded to the 
portfolio envisaged for delegation to the Agency in the ex ante Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific 
Financial Statement. 

According to the Specific Financial Statement estimates, CHAFEA’s operational budget71 allocated 
for  2014-2020  amounted  to  EUR 973.5  million.  The  actual  operational  budget  in  executed 

71  

In commitment appropriations. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
commitment  appropriations  for  the  same  period  was  EUR 919.7  million,  5.5%  lower  than  the 
Specific Financial Statement estimates (Figure 4 and Table 8). The actual operational budget during 
2014-2016 was very close to the initial Specific Financial Statement estimates; however, during the 
period 2017-2020 it was 5-10% lower. 

Figure 4. Specific Financial Statement-estimated and actual CHAFEA operational budget 2014-
202072, million EUR 

180

171

196

186

199

179

142

128

76

77

81

78

99

100

250

200

150

100

50

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

SFS estimates

Actual

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the Specific Financial Statement and 
CHAFEA AARs, 2014-2020. 

CHAFEA’s  actual  operational  budget  during  the  period  2014-2020  corresponded  to  the  Specific 
Financial Statement estimates for the HP and AGRIP; however, it was lower for the CP (86% of the 
Specific  Financial  Statement  estimate)  and  BTSF  (77%  of  the  Specific  Financial  Statement 
estimate) (Table 8). 

Table  8.  Specific  Financial  Statement-estimated  and  actual  CHAFEA  operational  budget  2014-
2020 (commitment appropriations) by programme, million EUR 

Programme 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 
2014-
2020 

Specific Financial Statement 

Consumer programme 

17.010 

17.493 

18.482 

19.306 

20.140 

21.171 

21.833 

135.435 

Health programme 

42.296 

43.233 

45.161 

47.056 

48.548 

50.079 

51.172 

327.545 

Better  Training  for  Safer 
Food  

Promotion  of  Agricultural 
Products programme 

Total 

Actual 

17.000 

20.000 

21.000 

22.000 

23.000 

24.000 

25.000 

152.000 

14.812 

53.187 

88.566 

101.077  100.863  358.505 

76.306 

80.726 

99.455 

141.549  180.254  196.327  198.868  973.485 

72  

In commitment appropriations, all fund sources. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Consumer programme 

16.56 

15.06 

16.12 

12.34 

18.70 

19.21 

19.06 

117.049 

Health programme 

45.15 

48.46 

49.71 

46.76 

46.59 

47.59 

40.53 

324.795 

Better  Training  for  Safer 
Food  

Promotion  of  Agricultural 
Products programme 

15.39 

14.69 

15.37 

16.37 

17.50 

18.00 

19.00 

116.315 

18.48 

52.50 

88.60 

101.10 

100.90 

361.580 

Total 

77.100 

78.210 

99.680 

127.968  171.390  185.900  179.490  919.738 

95.1% 

94.7% 

101.0%  96.9% 

100.2%  90.4% 

Actual/Specific  Financial 
Statement estimates 
Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on CHAFEA Specific Financial Statement and 
AARs. 
The  actual  ‘budget  per  head’  ratio  in  CHAFEA  during  2014-2016  and  2018  was  in  line  with  the 
initial Specific Financial Statement estimates (see the figure below), but a lower ratio was observed 
in 2017, 2019 and 2020, which related to a lower than initially estimated operational budget. The 
‘budget  per  head’  ratio  grew  significantly  during  2017-2018,  which  was  related  to  the  growing 
operational budget of the Agency due to of the inflow of funds from the AGRIP. 

90.3% 

94.5% 

Figure 5. Specific Financial Statement estimated and actual CHAFEA ‘budget per head’ 2014-
202073, million EUR 

2,54

2,60

2,58

2,48

2,52

2,33

2,14

2,10

1,53

1,57

1,58

1,60

1,66

1,69

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

SFS

Actual

Source: prepared by the study team, based on Specific Financial Statement and CHAFEA AARs, 2014-2020. 

Aside  from  the  allocated  operational  budget,  the  Agency’s  workload  was  closely  linked  to  the 
parameters  of  the  delegated  programmes,  such  as  the  distribution  of  the  programme’s  budget 
between tenders and grants (the administration of tenders was generally more resource-consuming, 
as for every service contract a separate tender must be launched and managed, whereas a number of 
grant agreements can be concluded following a single call for proposals, etc.), as well as the number 
of contracts/grants and the average grant/contract size (lower average grant/contract size means that 
the  Agency  must  administer  more  grants/contracts  for  the  same  administrative  budget),  etc.  The 
level of CHAFEA’s workload was further inflated by the fact that, being a small agency, it had to 
manage a diverse programme portfolio with  limited complementarities and synergies between the 
programmes themselves, in terms of both specialised knowledge and forms of delivery. Moreover, 
the  programmes  managed  by  CHAFEA  were  implemented  through  a  wide  mix  of  different 
instruments  (procurements/service  contracts,  mono-  and  multi-beneficiary  grants,  joint  actions, 

73  

In commitment appropriations. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
direct grants to international organisations, framework partnerships for operating grants, payment of 
special  indemnities  for  the  exchange  of  officials,  etc.).  This  variety  of  instruments  meant  that  the 
actual characteristics of the delegated programmes were very complex and deviated from the initial 
2013 Cost-Benefit Analysis estimations. Given that CHAFEA was a much smaller agency than its 
counterparts, its horizontal (administrative) functions put heavier pressure, in relative terms, on the 
resources of the Agency compared with the situation in larger agencies. 

The  analysis  reveals  that  in  2020  CHAFEA  achieved  93.5%  and  91.2%,  respectively,  of  the 
productivity  level  in  terms  of  ‘budget  per  head’  initially  estimated  in  the  2013  Cost-Benefit 
Analysis and the Communication to  the Commission  on the delegation of the management of the 
2014-2020 programmes  to  the  agencies  (see Section  1 and  Table 2  for details)74. The budget  ‘per 
head’ ratio in CHAFEA increased from EUR 1.36 million in 2013 to EUR 2.33 million in 2020 (an 
increase of 71%) (Figure 6). 

Figure 6. Estimated and actual budget ‘per head’ in CHAFEA in 2013 and 2020, million EUR75 

2,49

2,56

2,33

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

1,36

2013

2020 CBA

2020 adjusted by the
Commission

2020 actual

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the Communication to the Commission on the 
delegation  of  the  management  of  the  2014-2020  programmes  to  executive  agencies  (SEC(2013)493),  and  CHAFEA 
AARs, 2013-2020. 

5.  Qualitative analysis 
Qualitative aspects of the Cost-Benefit Analysis (which reflect the Cost-Benefit Analysis questions 
provided  in  Article 3(1)  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No 58/2003)  were  integrated  into  the  overall 
evaluation  framework  (evaluation  questions  addressed  under  Task  1  and  Task  2,  Table  9).  This 
allowed duplication of work to be avoided and ensured a consistent approach throughout the overall 
evaluation  exercise.  Nevertheless,  in  this  part  of  the  report,  we  summarise  the  key  findings 
concerning each qualitative aspect of the Cost-Benefit Analysis. 

74   Lower ‘budget per head’ at CHAFEA related to the lower than initially estimated operational budget (in commitment appropriations) in 2020. 
Also, the budget estimated in the Specific Financial Statement in 2020 (EUR 198.9 million) was lower than the estimates in the Communication 
to the Commission on the delegation of the management of the 2014-2020 programmes to executive agencies (EUR 201.9 million). 
In commitment appropriations. 

75  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9. Qualitative aspects of the Cost-Benefit Analysis and their correspondence to evaluation 
tasks 

Qualitative aspect of the Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Identification of the tasks justifying outsourcing 

Correspondence to evaluation tasks 
Task 1, Task 2.1 and Task 2.3 

Costs of coordination and checks 

Task 2.2 and retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Impact on human resources 

Task 2.2 and retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis 

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 Community as a promoter of the 

Community programme concerned 

Need to maintain an adequate level of know-how 

inside the Commission 

Task 2.2 and retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Task 2.1 and Task 2.2 

Task 2.2 

Task 2.1 

Task 2.1 

Task 2.1 and Task 2.3 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

Identification of the tasks justifying outsourcing 

During the period 2017-2021, CHAFEA operated according to the legal framework that established 
the Agency. Although the overall delimitation of responsibilities between CHAFEA and its parent 
Directorates-General was sound, there was some room for improvement. 

CHAFEA  was  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the  following  programmes:  the  CP,  the  HP, 
the BTSF, the AGRIP, as well as some legacy programmes. Overall, CHAFEA was responsible for 
the management of a broad range of programmes within a diverse and fragmented portfolio, which 
limited possible improvements to  the efficiency  of programme management,  as well as making it 
difficult for the Agency to exploit synergies between different programmes. 

For more details on this, please refer to Sections  4.1 (EQ 1.1.1), 4.2 (EQ 2.1.1.1 and EQ 2.1.2.1) 
and 4.4 (EQ 2.3.1) of the study supporting the evaluation. 

Costs of coordination and checks 

The results of the 2017-2020 retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis showed that the actual costs of the 
executive agency scenario were higher than the Specific Financial Statement estimates. The overall 
actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario76  amounted  to  EUR 42.5  million  during  the  period 
2017-2020. To evaluate the extent to  which these actual costs corresponded to the initial  Specific 
Financial Statement estimates, it is important to  follow the same assumptions that produced these 
Specific  Financial  Statement  estimates.  The  Specific  Financial  Statement  estimates  (EUR 37.5 
million  for  the  period  2017-2020)  were  based  on  the  EU  contribution,  whereas  CHAFEA’s 
administrative budget also included contributions from EEA/EFTA and third countries (EUR 0.59 
million  during  the  period  2017-2020)  to  manage  an  additional  operational  budget.  Consequently, 
based on the EU contribution alone, the actual costs of the executive agency scenario amounted to 
EUR 41.9 million, and were EUR 4.4 million (11.8%) higher than the Specific Financial Statement 

76  

Including the cost of coordination and monitoring by the Commission, and the costs covered from EEA/EFTA and third country contributions. 

68 

 
 
 
estimates.  This  resulted  from  Title  I,  ‘Staff-related  expenditure’,  due  to  CHAFEA’s  average  staff 
costs being underestimated in the 2013 Cost-Benefit Analysis and Specific Financial Statement. 

For more details on this, please refer to Section 5.2 of the study supporting the evaluation. 

Impact on human resources 

The  retrospective  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  revealed  that  during  the  period  2017-2020,  CHAFEA 
managed to cope using the HR allocated. The composition of its staff (the ratio between temporary 
agents and contract agents) corresponded to the Specific Financial Statement estimates. CHAFEA 
was successful in ensuring sound HR management by proactively implementing its HR policy and 
aligning  it  with  Commission-wide  principles.  The  Agency  efficiently  implemented  its  2016-2020 
HR Strategy, which was illustrated by  a significant  increase in  staff satisfaction, engagement and 
well-being  at  the Agency, according to  the  results  of the 2018 Staff Survey (e.g. the overall staff 
engagement index rose to 63%, compared with 55% in the 2016 survey). However, the decision to 
wind up CHAFEA brought about a significant turnover in staff at the Agency (more than 20 staff 
departed in 2020). 

For more details on this, please refer to Sections 4.3 (EQ 2.2.6) and 5.2 of the study supporting the 
evaluation. 

Possible savings within the general budgetary framework of the European Union 

The costs of the executive agency scenario were slightly lower than the estimated costs of the in-
house scenario. In 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a difference in cost between the 
executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 4.1 million (or 8.7% of the 
estimated  costs  under  the  in-house  scenario).  Due  to  the  specificities  of  CHAFEA,  the  financial 
benefits of externalisation were more limited than was the case with other agencies, for which the 
volume of the actual cost savings due to externalisation amounted to between 32% and 36% of the 
estimated  costs  under  the  in-house  scenario.  When  the  savings  initially  estimated  in  the  Specific 
Financial  Statement  and  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  were  compared  with  the  actual  savings  from  the 
delegation of tasks to CHAFEA, the actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were found to be 
44.7%  lower  than  the  initial  Specific  Financial  Statement  estimates  (EUR 4.1  million,  compared 
with EUR 7.3 million) and 58.7% lower than the initial Cost-Benefit Analysis estimates (EUR 4.1 
million, compared with EUR 9.9 million). As forecast in the Specific Financial Statement and the ex 
ante Cost-Benefit Analysis, the savings of the executive agency scenario resulted primarily from a 
higher share of lower-cost external personnel (contract agents) being employed within the Agency. 
However, higher actual staff costs at CHAFEA compared with the Commission’s estimated average 
staff costs limited the actual savings. 

For more details on this, please refer to Section 5.3 of the study supporting the evaluation. 

Efficiency and flexibility in the implementation of outsourced tasks 

During  the  evaluation  period,  CHAFEA  implemented  its  AWPs  in  an  efficient  way.  The  Agency 
was  efficient  in  producing  the  planned  outputs  (issuing  calls,  evaluating  proposals  and 
administering grants and tenders), and achieved good results in terms of key performance indicators 
(Time-To-Inform,  Time-To-Grant  and  Time-To-Pay  were  met,  with  some  minor  deviations) 
relating  to  the  management  of  the  delegated  programmes.  The  Agency  managed  to  achieve  the 
expected  outputs  and  results  despite  the  challenges  it  faced  during  the  evaluation  period  (in 
particular, the COVID-19 pandemic and the process of transition to the successor agencies). 

The Agency was flexible enough to accommodate the key changes that occurred during the period 
2017-2021 in terms of adapting its organisational structure after the Commission’s reorganisation in 
2016,  responding  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (by  changing  the  management  of  the  delegated 
programmes and its internal business processes) and Brexit, as well as implementing the transition 
to the Brussels-based agencies after the Commission’s decision to wind up the Agency. 

69 

 
For more details on this, please refer to Sections 4.2 (EQ 2.1.1.2) and 4.3 of the study supporting 
the evaluation. 

Simplification of the procedures used 

In  2018,  CHAFEA  set  up  an  interinstitutional  task  force  on  simplification,  composed  of 
representatives  from  the  Agency  and  its  parent  Directorates-General.  Although  the  task  force 
discussed  new  possibilities  for  the  further  simplification  and  harmonisation  of  financial 
mechanisms,  their  adoption  was  delayed  until  the  next  programming  period  (and  the  decision  to 
wind up the Agency made these changes less relevant). On the other hand, the results of the present 
evaluation show that the development of simplified and digitised application and grant management 
procedures  (especially  under  the  HP)  lowered  the  administrative  burden  for  all  stakeholders. 
According to the survey and interview programme with beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants, 
there was still a good deal of support for the further development of simplification options whose 
implementation  could  have  further  increased  efficiency  in  the  implementation  of  the  delegated 
programmes. 

For more details on this, please refer to Section 4.3 (EQ 2.2.3 and EQ 2.2.4) of the study supporting 
the evaluation. 

Proximity of outsourced activities to final beneficiaries 

Analysis  of  the  available  evidence  showed  that  CHAFEA  was  proximate  to  the  programme 
participants,  which  was  reflected  in  the  contact  the  Agency  maintained  with  applicants, 
beneficiaries, and external experts throughout the evaluation period. 

For  more  details  on  this,  please  refer  to  Section  4.2  (EQ  2.1.4.1)  of  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation. 

Visibility of the Community as the promoter of the Community programme concerned 

Based on the evidence gathered during interviews and surveys, CHAFEA ensured  the visibility of 
the  EU  as  the  promoter  of  the  programmes  entrusted  to  the  Agency.  Beneficiaries,  unsuccessful 
applicants  and  external  experts  were  aware  that  the  EU  was  the  promoter  of  all  programmes 
delegated to CHAFEA and that CHAFEA acted under powers delegated by the Commission. 

For  more  details  on  this,  please  refer  to  Section  4.2  (EQ  2.1.5)  of  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation. 

Need to maintain an adequate level of know-how within the Commission 

The  monitoring,  reporting  and  supervision  arrangements  put  in  place  by  the  Commission  and 
CHAFEA were effective, and ensured both the Agency’s accountability and the sufficient transfer 
of  knowledge  between  the  Agency  and  its  parent  Directorates-General.  At  the  end  of  2020,  to 
provide  better  policy  support  to  the  Commission,  CHAFEA  initiated  the  preparation  of  an  action 
plan  on  knowledge  sharing  and  feedback  to  policy,  but  this  plan  was  not  completed  due  to  the 
announcement  of  the  Agency’s  closure.  While  the  Agency  introduced  a  standard  quarterly  report 
template to harmonise different reporting approaches, room still remained to improve the transfer of 
knowledge  to  the  Commission  through  the  development  of  clearer  monitoring  frameworks  for 
systematically collecting and analysing data. 

For more details on this, please refer to Sections 4.2 (EQ 2.1.3.2) and 4.4 (EQ 2.3.3 and 2.3.4) of 
the study supporting the evaluation. 

70 

 
 
ANNEX VI. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Annex  VI  presents  a  concise  overview  and  conclusions  on  the  work  carried  out  to  evaluate 
CHAFEA.  It  covers  both  types  of  stakeholder  consultation  activities  (surveys  and  interviews) 
carried out by the study team. In line with the requirements set out in the Terms of Reference and 
the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox77, the evaluation: 

•  outlines the consultation strategy; 

•  explains the implementation of each consultation activity undertaken and its alignment with 

the original consultation strategy; and 

•  summarises and compares the results of the consultation activities. 

The purpose of this annex is to inform policymaking on the outcome of all consultation activities, 
and to inform stakeholders on how their input has been taken into account. 

1. Outline of the consultation strategy 

Figure 7. Design and execution of the consultation strategy 

Design of the consultation strategy

Setting 
consultation 
objectives

Mapping 
stakeholders

Determining 
consultation 
methods

Conducting consultation work

Surveys

Informing policy making

Interviews

Preparation of the evaluation 
reports

Presentations to the ISG and the 
Steering Committees of agencies

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

The purpose of the stakeholder consultation carried out as part of this evaluation was to gather the 
views  of  key  stakeholders  and  the  data  needed  to  inform  responses  to  the  evaluation  questions. 
Given the scope of the Agency’s activities, the consultation sought to include various categories of 
stakeholders,  in  particular  Commission  staff  from  the  parent  Directorates-General,  Agency  staff, 
beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  to  the programmes  managed  by  CHAFEA,  and  external 
experts contracted by the Agency. The implementation of the consultation strategy was coordinated 
with the evaluations of other agencies to the extent necessary. 

The methods used for the stakeholder consultation included two surveys and an extensive interview 
programme.  Table  10  sets  out  the  types  of  stakeholders  engaged  for  each  consultation  method 
whose results are presented in the subsequent sections of this annex. 

77   European  Commission,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  Brussels,  3.11.2021  SWD(2021)  305  final. 
Available  at:  https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf;  European  Commission,  ‘Better  regulation’  toolbox  – 
November 2021 edition. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/br_toolbox-nov_2021_en_0.pdf. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. Main information on stakeholder consultation activities 

Consultation 
activity 

Surveys 

Survey 
A 

Survey 
B 

Interview 
programme 

Target groups 

Date 

Beneficiaries of and unsuccessful applicants to the 
programmes managed by CHAFEA: all beneficiaries of the 
HP, CP and AGRIP as well as unsuccessful applicants of the 
HP and AGRIP calls launched under the 2017-2020 AWPs 

External experts contracted by CHAFEA 

•  Commission staff from parent Directorates-General 

•  Senior manager of CHAFEA 

•  Heads and representatives of the units of CHAFEA 

•  Representatives of the CHAFEA Staff Committee 

•  Beneficiaries of and unsuccessful applicants to the 

programmes managed by CHAFEA 

•  External experts contracted by CHAFEA 

23 November / 
1 December – 
13 December 2022 

23 November / 
1 December – 
8 December 2022 

25 August 2022 –
February 2023 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

These different types of stakeholder consultation activities complemented each other. The survey of 
unsuccessful  applicants,  beneficiaries  and  external  experts,  as  well  as  the  interviews  with  these 
stakeholders informed the answers to the evaluation questions on effectiveness and efficiency of the 
Agency.  Interviews  with  Commission  and  CHAFEA  staff  also  helped  to  address  the  evaluation 
questions related to coherence. 

2.  Key results of consultation activities 

2.1. 

Summarised results of the survey 

Survey  A  addressed  all  beneficiaries  of  the  HP,  CP  and  AGRIP  programmes,  as  well  as 
unsuccessful  applicants  to  calls  launched  under  the  2017-2020  AWPs  of  the  HP  and  AGRIP 
programmes. Due to their small sample size, procurement beneficiaries under the BTSF did not take 
part in the survey. As shown in Table 11, a total of 54 responses to the survey were received from 
CHAFEA’s beneficiaries, and 19 from  unsuccessful applicants.  This  represents  a response rate of 
21% for beneficiaries, and 12% for unsuccessful applicants, resulting in an overall response rate of 
17% for Survey A. Survey B targeted all external experts contracted by CHAFEA in 2017-2020. A 
total of 69 responses were received, representing a response rate of 39%. 

Table 11. Main statistics on the implementation of the surveys 

Target group 

Full launch of 
the survey (most 
invitations were 
sent on this date) 

Survey closure 
date 

Population 
targeted/no. of 
invitations 
sent out 

No. of 
responses 
received 

Beneficiaries 

1 December 2022 

13 December 
2022 

264 

Unsuccessful 
applicants 

1 December 2022 

13 December 
2022 

164 

Partial: 13 
Complete: 41 
Total: 54 

Partial: 5 
Complete: 14 
Total: 19 

Response 
rate 

Total: 21% 
Only 
including 
complete: 
16% 
Total: 12% 
Only 
including 
complete: 9% 

No. of responses 
included in the 
analysis after 
cleaning 

Partial: 6 
Complete: 40 
Total: 46 

Partial: 2 
Complete: 14 
Total: 16 

72 

 
Experts 

23 November 
2022 

8 December 
2022 

176 

Note: the response rate was calculated using the formula: 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 =

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

Effectiveness 

Partial: 0 
Complete: 69 
Total: 69 

Total: 39% 
Only 
including 
complete: 
39% 
𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑

𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡

Partial: 0 
Complete: 68 
Total: 68 

∗ 100% 

Overall,  both  the  CHAFEA  beneficiaries  and  the  unsuccessful  applicants  were  satisfied  with  the 
overall  quality  of  the  programme  management  services  provided  by  CHAFEA  during  the  whole 
application  and  project  implementation  period  (94%,  37  out  of  39  and  79%,  11  out  of  14 
respectively).  In  addition,  most  respondents  appreciated  CHAFEA’s  ability  to  adjust  to  the  key 
changes  in  the  context  of  the  operation.  A  total  of  98%  (43  out  of  44)  of  beneficiaries  and 
unsuccessful  applicants  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  Agency  acted  promptly  and  flexibly to 
maintain the quality of its services during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Both groups of respondents positively evaluated the information provided for applicants. A total of 
82% (47 out of 57) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that information for applicants (e.g. about 
the deadlines, call objectives, eligibility, award and selection criteria, documentation needed, etc.) 
was  easy  to  find  while  79%  (42  out  of  53)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  requirements  for  the 
application  process  were  reasonable  and  the  deadline  for  submission  was  sufficiently  long  to 
prepare 
the  perceived 
reasonableness  and  proportionality  of  application  requirements  between  the  beneficiaries  and  the 
unsuccessful applicants. 

the  application.  There  were  no  significant  differences  regarding 

Furthermore, 83% of respondents (44 out of 53) agreed that the application process was clear and 
transparent, without significant variation between different groups of respondents. Interestingly, the 
unsuccessful  applicants  were  generally  more  positive  regarding  the  provision  of  information, 
compared to the beneficiaries. For example, 93% of unsuccessful applicants (14 out of 15) agreed 
or  strongly  agreed  that  the  information  for  applicants  was  clear  and  enabled  to  understand  the 
application procedures, compared to 72% of beneficiaries (28 out of 39). 

The user-friendliness of the application process was perceived rather similarly by beneficiaries and 
unsuccessful applicants, but some elements of the process were perceived more positively than the 
others.  The  respondents  strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  the  priorities  and  objectives  of  the 
programme guide / specific guidelines were clear throughout the application process (81%, 43 out 
of  53)  and  they  found  them  to  be  user-friendly  (75%,  39  out  of  52).  Similarly,  the  results  of  the 
application were seen as easy to access (51%, 38 out of 51). However, a somewhat smaller number 
of  respondents  agreed  that  the  e-form  for  application/submission  was  clear  and  easy  to  complete 
(67%, 34 out of 51) and the IT tool used for the application process was user-friendly (65%, 34 out 
of 52). 

Most  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  (strongly)  agreed  that  the  evaluation  process  was 
clear and transparent (76%, 39 out of 51), and they received useful and practical feedback on their 
applications (82%, 42 out of 51). Most of the unsuccessful applicants agreed or strongly agreed that 
the outcome of their application was fair, and they had no objections to it (87%, 13 out of 15). 

Regarding  the  communication  with  CHAFEA,  beneficiaries  were  more  positive  about  the 
availability and responsiveness of the Agency’s staff, compared to the unsuccessful applicants. For 
example, while both groups (strongly) agreed that they knew who to contact for any question(s) or 
where to get help when preparing the application (76%, 37 out of 49), the support for this statement 
was  significantly  higher  among  beneficiaries  (83%,  30  out  of  36)  compared  to  unsuccessful 
applicants (54%, 7 out of 13). Overall, 73% (33 out of 45) beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants 
strongly agreed or agreed that they were satisfied with CHAFEA’s ability to respond to questions 

73 

 
 
on  the  application  and  selection  process  within  a  reasonable  timeframe.  This  trend  was  also 
supported by the results of Survey B, indicating that most experts (99%, 67 out of 68) considered 
CHAFEA staff as responsive and providing useful answers to their questions (100%, 67 out of 67). 

Similar  trends  were  observed  among  the  beneficiaries  during  the  grant  or  the  project 
implementation  phase.  Most  of  them  (strongly)  agreed  that  the  answers  received  from  CHAFEA 
were clear and accurate (94%, 32 out of 34). They were satisfied with CHAFEA’s ability to respond 
to  questions  within  a  reasonable  timeframe  (91%,  31  out  of  34)  while  the  lowest  share  of 
respondents (79%, 27 out of 34) (strongly) agreed that CHAFEA staff assigned to the project during 
the implementation stage were easy to get hold of and responsive. Overall, beneficiaries (97%, 38 
out of 39), unsuccessful applicants (69%, 9 out of 13) and external experts were satisfied with the 
communication  and  interaction  with  CHAFEA  during  the  whole  application  process  (and,  if 
applicable,  project  implementation)  period.  While  evaluating  the  usefulness  of  the  online 
information, external experts were the most positive about the online manual (step-by-step guide for 
portal  processes)  (96%,  25  out  of  26  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  manual  was  useful), 
reference documents (96%, 23 out of 24) and direct support by CHAFEA’s staff (90%, 19 out of 
21). 

All surveyed groups of respondents were aware that the EU raises awareness of all the programmes 
delegated  to  CHAFEA  and  that  CHAFEA  is  acting  under  the  powers  delegated  to  it  by  the 
Commission.  A  total  of  90%  of  external  experts  (61  out  of  68)  were  aware  that  CHAFEA  was 
entrusted  to  manage  the  programmes  by  the  Commission,  with  a  slightly  lower  share  of 
beneficiaries  (89%,  40  out  of  45)  and  unsuccessful  applicants  (87%,  13  out  of  15)  being  aware 
about this aspect. 

The external experts contracted by CHAFEA were extremely satisfied with the services provided by 
the  Agency  during  the  process  of  becoming  an  expert  and  the  execution  of  expert  tasks.  The 
satisfaction  with  the  overall  quality  of  the  services  provided  by  CHAFEA  during  the  process  of 
becoming an external expert and execution of tasks as well as the provision of information varied in 
the range of 95-100% (65-68 out of 68). The external experts were also satisfied with the level of 
assistance and responsiveness of CHAFEA’s staff during your visit to Luxembourg (98%, 48 out of 
49). 

Efficiency 

While evaluating the simplification measures that were introduced in the programmes managed by 
CHAFEA  in  2017-2021,  both  beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  were  the  most  positive 
about the establishment of a single point of contact for individual organisations/host institutions. A 
total of 89% of respondents (39 out of 44) agreed or strongly agreed that this has made the process 
of  project  application  and/or  implementation  easier.  Most  respondents  (strongly)  agreed  that  the 
application  and/or  implementation  processes  were  also  improved  by  the  simplification  and 
clarification of the call guidelines (e.g. eligibility criteria) and the application forms (83%, 38 out of 
46) as well as the streamlining and harmonisation of funding rules and procedures across different 
programmes and programmes’ strands (79%, 30 out of 38). A further simplification of granting and 
reporting  requirements  improved  the  user-friendliness  of  IT  tools  for  project  management  and 
reporting as  well as the  further simplification of  guidance documentation were the most  favoured 
options  for  the  future  simplifications,  contributing  to  the  more  efficient  implementation  of  the 
programmes, managed by the successor agencies of CHAFEA. 

External experts contracted by CHAFEA reported that the evaluation process as generally efficient 
and  made  three  key  points  (95%,  61  out  of  64).  First,  most  were  positive  about  the  electronic 
evaluation  system  and  seen  it  as  easy  to  access  and  use  (94%,  62  out  of  66).  Second,  experts 
generally agreed that the templates for the reports they had to complete were fit for purpose (96%, 
64  out  of  67).  And  third,  the  results  of  the  experts’  survey  revealed  that  they  had  enough  time 
allocated to review the proposals/projects or perform their other tasks (85%, 58 out of 68). 

74 

 
While the beneficiaries generally agreed that the grant process was clear and transparent (84%, 38 
out of 38), some drawbacks in terms of the clarity and timeliness of the process were highlighted. In 
terms of clarity, most beneficiaries (strongly) agreed that requests from CHAFEA were clear, and 
that the contract was  easy to understand (89%, 32 out of 36 and 86%, 32 out of 37 respectively). 
However,  a  significantly  smaller  share  considered  the  electronic  tools  used  for  the  validation  and 
assessment  of  beneficiaries  as  user-friendly  (61%,  22  out  of  36).  In  terms  of  timeliness, 
beneficiaries reported CHAFEA’s activities during the grant/project as generally timely. A minority 
of beneficiaries (strongly) agreed that ‘time-to-inform’ was appropriate (81%, 29 out of 36) while a 
slightly larger proportion agreed or strongly agreed on the appropriateness of ‘time-to-sign’ (86%, 
22 out of 37) and ‘time-to-grant’ (89%, 33 out of 37). Similarly, most beneficiaries agreed that the 
payment  process  was  smooth  (90%,  27  out  of  30),  with  the  smallest  share  of  them  (strongly) 
agreeing that the time it took CHAFEA to process the final payment request and make payment was 
appropriate (80%, 16 out of 20). 

Regarding monitoring, reporting and supervision arrangements, most beneficiaries (87%, 26 out of 
30)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  monitoring  activities  carried  out  by  CHAFEA  staff  or 
external experts working for CHAFEA were useful in implementing the grant/project. However, a 
slightly lower share of beneficiaries (strongly) agreed that the monitoring and reporting processes 
were clear (78%, 25 out of 32) and the instructions given on reporting procedures were clear and 
user-friendly  (73%,  25  out  of  34).  Although  a  total  of  72%  of  unsuccessful  applicants  and 
beneficiaries (33 out of 46) agreed or strongly agreed that the simplification of reporting templates 
for  a  effectively  structured  collection  of  results  has  made  project  implementation  and  reporting 
easier, the demand for the further simplifications of reporting requirements remained high (95% of 
beneficiaries  and unsuccessful applicants,  36 out of 38  agreed or strongly agreed with  this need). 
Most external  experts  (95%, 68 out  of 68) agreed or strongly  agreed that the reporting required  a 
reasonable effort, but that the evaluation and project monitoring process was smooth (99%, 67 out 
of 68). 

Coherence 

The  survey  results  pointed  to  rather  high  levels  of  awareness  about  the  respective  roles, 
responsibilities  and  tasks  of  CHAFEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-General.  A  total  75%  of 
beneficiaries (33 out of 44) agreed or strongly agreed that the distinction was clear for them while 
the share of external experts supporting this statement was somewhat higher and reached 84% (57 
out  of  68).  However,  the  levels  of  awareness  were  significantly  lower  among  the  unsuccessful 
applicants. Only 53% (8 out of 15) agreed or strongly agreed that they were aware of the distinction 
in the roles of CHAFEA and its parent Directorates-General. 

2.2. 

Summarised results of the interview programme 

The  interviews  were  conducted  in  line  with  a  common  questionnaire,  including  questions  on  the 
evaluation  criteria  and  adjusted  to  the  experience  of  individual  stakeholders.  Each  interview  was 
recorded, and interview notes and/or transcripts were prepared based on the recordings. As initially 
planned, a total of 25 interviews with 27 interviewees was conducted. 

▪  Eight  interviews  (nine  interviewees)  with  representatives  of  parent  Directorates-General 
(except Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs). 
▪  Seven  interviews  (eight  interviewees)  with  representatives  of  CHAFEA  and  its  successor 

agencies. 

▪  Five interviews (five interviewees) with unsuccessful applicants or beneficiaries and service 

providers of programmes managed by CHAFEA. 

▪  Three  interviews  (three  interviewees)  with  external  experts  who  worked  on  proposal 

evaluations. 

75 

 
▪  Two  interviews  (two  interviewees),  conducted  for  follow-up  and  validation  purposes  with 

the senior managers of CHAFEA. 

Effectiveness 

The  analysis  of  the  findings  that  emerged  from  the  interview  programme  with  Agency  and 
Commission  staff  confirmed  that  the  Agency  complied  with  its  legal  framework  during  the 
evaluation  period.  Interviewees  from  both  groups  also  generally  agreed  that  the  Memorandum  of 
Understanding clearly defined the responsibilities of CHAFEA and its parent Directorates-General. 
However,  staff  were  of  the  opinion  that  there  were  some  uncertainties  regarding  this  delineation 
during the implementation phase. 

In general, the feedback provided during the interviews suggested that CHAFEA was successful in 
enabling  the  Commission  to  focus  on  its  policy-related  tasks.  The  delegation  of  programme 
implementation  to  CHAFEA  was  especially  appreciated  in  terms  of  grant  management  while  the 
management  of  procurement  actions  was  still  seen  as  needing  closer  involvement  of  the  parent 
Directorates-General.  This  distinction  was  mostly  noted  in  the  context  of  the  management  of  the 
AGRIP,  where  implementation  of  the  Commission’s  own  initiatives  and  high-level  missions 
required  the  close  involvement  of  staff  from  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development. 

The  new  organisational  structure  that  was  established  during  the  current  evaluation  period  was 
positively  evaluated  in  terms  of  interactions  with  the  parent  Directorates-General.  For  example,  a 
representative  of  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  stated  that  this  change  allowed 
CHAFEA  to  better  respond  to  and  track  the  needs  of  parent  Directorates-General,  as  well  as 
improve communication. However, the evidence for internal effects was mixed. On the one hand, 
the  creation  of  a  new  unit  dealing  with  financial  issues  improved  the  ‘time-to-pay’  indicator  and 
resolved the previously existing issue of late payments. On the other hand, a few former-CHAFEA 
employees raised the potential issue of conflict-of-interest that arose with the merger of the cross-
cutting service (Legal team) and the operational unit (Consumer programme). 

Evidence  gathered  from  the  interviews  confirms  that  CHAFEA  achieved  its  objectives  in 
implementing  the  delegated  programmes  and  tasks.  Staff  from  the  representatives  of  parent 
Directorates-General  emphasised  CHAFEA’s  contribution 
the 
Commission’s  priorities,  particularly  in  health,  food  safety,  agriculture  and  consumer  policy.  In 
addition,  respondents  considered  that  CHAFEA  excelled  in  project  and  programme  management 
because  they  implemented  projects  in  line  with  the  rules,  within  the  deadlines  and  appropriately 
shared  the  relevant  information.  From  the  parent  Directorates-General’s  point  of  view,  CHAFEA 
successfully implemented delegated programmes, particularly in grant management. 

to  EU  policy  goals  and 

the  Agency  highlighted  high 

the  parent  Directorates-General  and 

Furthermore,  all  groups  of  interviewees  highlighted  CHAFEA’s  flexible  approach.  Interviewees 
from  both 
levels  of 
professionalism  and  dedication  that  helped  to  quickly  adjust  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The 
interviewees from CHAFEA highlighted that the continuation of activities was extremely harsh as it 
overlapped  with  the  transition  of  CHAFEA’s  activities  to  its  successor  agencies  and  high  staff 
turnover,  caused  by  this  decision.  However,  beneficiaries  and  external  experts  confirmed  that  the 
CHAFEA  demonstrated  high  levels  of  flexibility  and  the  pandemic  had  no  negative  impact  on 
implementing  most  of  the  projects.  Similarly,  staff  of  the  parent  Directorates-General  highlighted 
both  the  smooth  implementation  of  the  programmes  as  well  as  the  business  continuity  that  was 
ensured  during  the  transition  process  to  successor  agencies.  Furthermore,  the  staff  of  CHAFEA 
provided professional assistance throughout Brexit, which was especially appreciated by applicants 
and/or beneficiaries from the United Kingdom. 

76 

 
However,  a  few  interviews  with  the  former-CHAFEA  staff  revealed  that  key  performance 
indicators,  as  defined,  did  not  always  accurately  reflect  CHAFEA’s  real  performance  results. 
CHAFEA  managed  both  grants  and  procurements,  but  the  key  performance  indicators  for  both 
funding  mechanisms  were  the  same.  CHAFEA  staff  emphasised  the  nuances  of  the  procurement 
process  (detailed  specifications,  lower  number  of  contracts  signed,  etc.)  and  the  importance  of 
establishing different key performance indicators for this funding mechanism during the interview 
programme. 

Evidence  from  the  interviews  confirmed  the  satisfaction  of  beneficiaries,  applicants  and  experts 
with  CHAFEA’s  external  communication  channels.  Beneficiaries,  unsuccessful  applicants,  and 
external experts were aware that the EU raises awareness of all programmes delegated to CHAFEA 
and  that  CHAFEA  was  acting  under  powers  delegated  to  it  by  the  Commission.  The  personal 
involvement and support, provided by project officers, was mentioned both by the beneficiaries and 
the  external  experts  as  a  relevant  condition,  contributing  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
project. 

Efficiency 

Both Commission and CHAFEA staff pointed out that there were some efficiency losses resulting 
from  the  small  size  of  the  Agency  and  the  lack  of  opportunities  to  build  economies  of  scale.  For 
example, Agency staff stated that fixed costs for cross-cutting services were comparatively high due 
to its small size and limited number of staff. However, the respondents also pointed out that it was 
precisely  the  small  size  of  the  Agency  that  had  turned  it  into  a  hub  of  excellence  in  terms  of 
programme  management  since  most  of  its  employees  were  able  to  manage  both  grants  and 
procurement. Overall, both Agency and Commission staff confirmed that CHAFEA was efficient in 
achieving its key performance indicators without facing significant delays. 

The  former-representatives  of  CHAFEA  highlighted  that  it  was  constantly  striving  to  implement 
simplification  measures.  In  2020,  CHAFEA  adopted  e-procurement,  including  e-submission  in 
order  to  align  its  practices  with  the  Commission’s  digital  agenda.  To  be  precise,  respondents 
highlighted the usefulness of the PPMT corporate tool that was used for managing the entire call for 
tender cycle until the signature of the contract. CHAFEA was among the first agencies to adopt this 
tool and the  respondents  gave  a very positive  evaluation, noting that it provided efficiency gains. 
However,  the  interviews  revealed  that  some  units  were  slower  than  others  to  take-up  the  e-
procurement tool, e.g. the tool was not in place in the Health & Food Safety Unit until March 2021. 
Furthermore,  the  need  to  align  with  Commission-level  developments  was  stressed,  particularly  in 
financial  and  HR  management.  As  put  forward  by  one  of  the  respondents,  CHAFEA  was  closely 
following  the  instructions  or  recommendations  provided  by  Directorate-General  for  budget  and 
Directorate-General for human resources and security and putting them into practice. 

The  interviews  with  the  beneficiaries  also  revealed  that  there  were  other  areas  where  the  Agency 
could  improve  its  performance.  First,  some  of  the  interviewees  highlighted  difficult  application 
process, claiming that, while rather easy for those whose are familiar with the process, it might be 
burdensome  for  applicants  who  are  not  familiar  with  this  process  yet.  Second,  while  generally 
satisfied with the functioning of the IT systems, some of beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants 
still found them to be not sufficiently user-friendly. As advanced by one of the interviewees, taken 
together,  those  two  issues  might  even  put  off  some  organisations  from  submitting  an  application, 
i.e. there was a high ‘entry threshold’ for new applicants. 

Beneficiaries  generally  considered  the  grant  process  as  time-efficient.  However,  the  beneficiaries 
that  were  interviewed  stressed  that  they  considered  the  ‘time-to-inform’  as  too  long,  especially 
compared  with  the  time  dedicated  to  the  preparation  of  the  proposal.  The  interviews  with 
beneficiaries  showed  that  reporting  requirements  sometimes  overlapped.  Most  grant  beneficiaries 

77 

 
stated that many of the requirements were repetitive and adding a lot to their workload as the same 
information  had  to  be  presented  in  a  variety  of  different  formats,  including  summaries,  technical 
reports,  lists,  etc.  At  the  same  time,  beneficiaries  were  concerned  about  the  limited impact  of  the 
large-scale reports. 

External  experts  found  the  registration  process  to  become  an  approved  expert  and  the  overall 
collaboration with CHAFEA to be efficient.  Most interviewed experts stressed that the evaluation 
process  was  transparent  and  fair  and  that  the  support  provided  by  CHAFEA  was  of  high  quality. 
The simplification of procedures for becoming an approved expert, the provision of templates and 
the transfer to online space were mentioned as some of the key changes that took place during the 
evaluation  period.  However,  opinions  on  the  qualification  of  experts  varied:  while  some  of  the 
interviewees  had  no  doubts  about  the  professional  experience  of  the  experts,  others  stressed  that 
some experts with no relevant expertise in the field were involved in the evaluation. 

Coherence 

The  involvement  of  CHAFEA  was  valued  by  the  parent  Directorates-General  in  carrying  out 
procurement  activities  as  it  eased  their  workload  significantly.  The  main  concern  was  related  to 
implementing  high-level  missions  where  the  involvement  needed  from  the  parent  Directorates-
General  was  higher  than  expected.  Furthermore,  CHAFEA  showed  agility  and  flexibility  in 
accommodating  last-minute  requests  (e.g.  from  EU  delegations  to  organise  last-minute  promotion 
activities  in  support  of  certain  policy  goals).  As  highlighted  by  representatives  of  parent 
Directorates-General,  in  many  cases,  CHAFEA  accommodated  such  requests,  even  when  the 
amount of required lead time (as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding) was not indicated. 

The interviews with Commission and CHAFEA staff revealed slightly diverging opinions regarding 
the  involvement  of  CHAFEA  in  the  programming  process.  There  was  a  degree  of  reservation 
among parent Directorates-General about engaging CHAFEA more actively in the drafting of work 
programmes. It was mostly related to the effort of keeping them aligned with the EU priorities and 
policy direction. Furthermore, it was argued that the closer involvement of CHAFEA staff was not 
provided for in  the Memorandum  of Understanding and, therefore, they could  be mostly  engaged 
for  the  provision  of  data  or  feedback.  However,  CHAFEA  staff  argued  for  being  more  broadly 
involved  claiming  that  their  expertise  would  be  relevant  for  matching  the  funding  tool  and  the 
priority as well as developing clearer indicators to measure the programme's impact. 

As  indicated  by  the  interviewees,  communication  between  CHAFEA  and  the  parent  Directorates-
General  appeared  to  work  smoothly,  particularly  at  the  more  formal  level.  For  those  units  whose 
communication was more impromptu, a desire was expressed for more regular, formalised meetings 
to  discuss  progress  (on  a  weekly,  fortnightly  or  monthly  basis)  and  a  more  formalised  feedback 
mechanism between the Agency and the parent Directorates-General. Furthermore, CHAFEA staff 
highlighted  a  lack  of  information  exchange  mechanisms,  claiming  that  some  information  reached 
them  too  late  or  only  through  interpersonal  communication  while  some  staff  of  the  parent 
Directorates-General  highlighted  that  some  meetings  were  inefficient  and  poorly  structured, 
therefore, bringing only limited benefits to their participants. A number of activities have also been 
introduced to facilitate knowledge sharing between different units within CHAFEA. However, the 
interview  programme  revealed  that  the  parent  Directorates-General  were  pressed  to  initiate  new 
policy directions for political reasons that diverted attention away from the previous rounds of the 
implemented  programmes.  In  some  cases,  this  shift  of  policymaking  focus  led  the  Agency  to 
perceive that its efforts in providing feedback to policy were underappreciated. 

78 

 
2.3.  Comparison of the results of the consultation activities 

Table 12 shows the key results per consultation activity, organised by evaluation criteria, as well as 
by  the  level  of  consistency,  complementarity  and  contradiction  of  results  across  consultation 
activities. Overall, as shown in Table 12, there was high convergence in the results of the different 
consultation activities. 

79 

 
 
 
Table 12. Consistency, complementarity and contradiction of results across consultation activities 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Survey 

Interview programme 

Consistency 
of 
results 
across 
consultation 
activities 

Complementarity 
of 
results across 
consultation 
activities 

Contradiction 
of 
results across 
consultation 
activities 

Effectiveness 

Beneficiaries expressed high levels of 
satisfaction with CHAFEA’s performance 
throughout the project management process. 
External experts were overall satisfied with the 
services provided by the Agency during the 
registration for becoming an expert and the 
execution of expert activities. However, some 
diverging opinions regarding the transparency of 
experts’ selection process were revealed by 
Survey B. 

Most beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants 
rated the evaluation process as effective, fair, and 
transparent. A significant share of beneficiaries 
would participate again (re-apply) or were 
involved in another project during the evaluation. 

Most of beneficiaries, unsuccessful applicants, 
and external experts were satisfied with 
CHAFEA's communication and their interaction 
with the Agency. Typically, respondents 
evaluated the representatives of CHAFEA as 
responsive. 

The programmes managed by CHAFEA were 
seen as well-promoted by all categories of 

Most interviewees considered CHAFEA as flexible 
enough to accommodate key changes in the context of 
operation. While all groups of interviewees unilaterally 
agreed that CHAFEA managed to adjust to challenges 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit, their 
opinions towards the management of the closure of the 
Agency were more diverse. Namely, the 
representatives of parent Directorates-General 
generally treated this process as highly successful, 
while the representatives of CHAFEA highlighted 
challenges encountered during the transition. 

Interviewees confirmed that CHAFEA met its overall 
objectives and targets. The interview programme 
provided mixed evidence on the definition of key 
performance indicators. While most interviewees 
claimed that key performance indicators reflect 
CHAFEA's actual performance results, some of them 
highlighted that key performance indicators did not 
encompass the difference between grants and public 
procurement modes. 

Furthermore, interviewees from CHAFEA and its 
parent Directorates-General confirmed that the 
Agency's communication was effective. Supplementing 

80 

High 

High 

Low 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
respondents. Most of them were aware that 
CHAFEA was entrusted to manage this 
programme by the Commission and that the EU 
was the funder and promoter of all programmes 
delegated to CHAFEA. 

Most of the surveyed beneficiaries and 
unsuccessful applicants agreed that there is still 
room for simplification, in particular in terms of 
increasing the user-friendliness of IT tools and 
simplifying the guidance documentation. 

Both beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants 
generally agreed that the grant amendment and 
payment processes were smooth. 

Efficiency 

Most surveyed experts were satisfied by their 
work experience with CHAFEA and were 
willing to further collaborate with its successor 
agencies. This group of respondents agreed that 
the evaluation / project monitoring process was 
smooth and the reporting requirements required 
reasonable effort. 

The survey of CHAFEA’s unsuccessful 
applicants, beneficiaries and external experts 
revealed that the latter groups were overall well 
aware of the different roles performed by the 
Agency and its parent Directorates-General. 
However, the levels of awareness among the 
unsuccessful applicants were significantly lower. 

Coherence 

results of the surveys, the interviews with beneficiaries 
and external experts highlighted the communication 
with CHAFEA project officers as one of the most 
useful tools for information exchange. The interviews 
with external experts complemented the survey results 
by providing more information on the registration 
process. 

Overall, all interviewees expressed satisfaction with 
CHAFEA's performance. 

Some Commission staff indicated that the Agency's 
staffing level was not appropriate. 

CHAFEA staff confirmed, that some efficiency loss 
resulted from small size of the Agency and lack of 
opportunities to have the economies of scale. 
Furthermore, the diversity of programmes also limited 
the efficiency gains. This, according to some CHAFEA 
staff, was also related with a variety of financial 
instruments used, which, in turn, increased the 
workload. 

All groups of interviewees claimed that corporate tools 
simplified as well as digitised application and grant 
management procedures, which consequently reduced 
the administrative burden. 

Interviewees from the Agency claimed that their skills 
were somewhat underexploited during the preparation 
of work programmes while the representatives of 
parent Directorates-General expressed more reserved 
attitudes towards an increased involvement of 
CHAFEA officials in this process. 

Interviewees from the Commission overall agreed that 

81 

High 

High 

Low 

High 

High 

Low 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency. 

the delegation of programme management tasks to 
CHAFEA enabled them to better focus on their 
primary policymaking tasks. 

All parent Directorates-General agreed that the 
communication and feedback from the Agency was 
overall important and helpful. However, they have also 
noted some room for improvement. On the other hand, 
CHAFEA staff reported a lack of clear guidelines and 
communication about what outputs of feedback to 
policy were relevant for the Commission. 

The physical distance between the Agency (in 
Luxembourg) and the Commission (in Brussels) was 
not perceived as an important constraint to knowledge 
exchange neither by the Agency nor by its parent 
Directorates-General. 

82