COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Final Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 652/2014 (Union common financial framework) for the expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and welfare and plant health and plant reproductive material for the period 2014-2020
Date: 2026-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, disease prevention, distribution of EU funding, food safety, general budget (EU), health control, plant health control, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.3.2026  SWD(2026) 96 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Final Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 652/2014 (Union common financial framework) for the expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and welfare and plant health and plant reproductive material for the period 2014-2020  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1  Regulatory context, purpose and scope ..................................................................... 1 

1.2 

Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION ......................................... 3 
2.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................... 3 
2.2.  POINT(S) OF COMPARISON ............................................................................................................. 5 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......................... 6 

3.1 

Current state of play ....................................................................................................... 6 

4. 

EVALUATIONS FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 6 

4.1 

4.2 

Overview of the implementation ................................................................................... 6 

Animal Health ................................................................................................................ 7 

4.2.1  Veterinary Programmes ............................................................................................. 7 

4.2.2  Vaccine banks .......................................................................................................... 13 

4.2.3  EU funding for emergency measures on animal health ........................................... 14 

4.2.4  Case studies on animal diseases .............................................................................. 19 

4.3 

Plant health .................................................................................................................. 27 

4.3.1 

Phytosanitary emergency measures ......................................................................... 27 

4.3.2 

Programmes concerning the presence of pests ........................................................ 31 

4.4 

Official controls ........................................................................................................... 33 

4.4.1  EU funding for European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) ........................ 35 

4.4.2 

Payments regarding BTSF activities during the period 2014 -2019 ........................ 36 

4.5 

4.6 

4.7 

To what extent were the interventions successful and why? ....................................... 40 

How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? .................................. 40 

Is the intervention still relevant? .................................................................................. 40 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 40 
5.1.  SECTORIAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CFF REGULATION ................... 40 
5.2.  OVERARCHING  CONCLUSION  ON  THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  THE  CFF 

REGULATION ................................................................................................................................... 42 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 43 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 44 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................................. 45 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ........................................................................... 48 

ANNEX  V.  STAKEHOLDERS  CONSULTATION 

-  SYNOPSIS  REPORT  OF  THE 

QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF MEMBER STATES ............... 52 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

Introduction 

This ex-post  evaluation  report  builds  upon  previous evaluations1,  relevant  internal  assessments, 
audits, and other technical reports to provide a comprehensive analysis of the implementation of 
Regulation (EU) No 652/20142, that established a Common Financial Framework (CFF) for the 
management  of  expenditure  relating  to  the  food  chain,  animal  health  and  animal  welfare,  and 
relating  to  plant  health  and  plant  reproductive  material.  Regulation  (EU)  No  652/2014  (CFF 
Regulation) makes  funding  available  for  technical,  scientific,  coordination,  and communication 
activities  to  ensure  the  correct  implementation  of  Union  law  and  its  adaptation  to  scientific, 
technological,  and  societal  developments.  The  evaluation  primarily  targets  flexibility  and 
responsiveness,  enhanced  coordination  and  harmonisation,  and  effectiveness  of  targeted 
interventions. 

1.1.1 Regulatory context, purpose and scope 

Article 42 of the CFF Regulation mandates to conduct an ex-post evaluation to assess the extent 
to which the activities carried out under the CFF achieved the relevant objectives. Nevertheless, it 
must be noted that the CFF Regulation was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2021/6903, establishing 
the  Single  Market  Programme  (SMP)  for  2021–2027,  ensuring  continuity  of  co-financing  the 
measures in the areas previously covered by the CFF Regulation. Consequently, Article 42 of the 
CFF  Regulation,  providing  that  the  Commission  establishes  and  presents  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council a final evaluation report by 30 June 2022, is in principle obsolete. 
However,  Article  277(4)  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2024/25094,  which  repeals  and  replaces 
Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2018/10465  provides  for  specific  financial  rules  governing  the 

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety,  IBF,  VetEffecT  and 
Wageningen  University, Mid-term  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  652/2014  –  Final  report, 
Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/399507. 
Regulation  (EU)  No  652/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  May  2014 
laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health 
and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council 
Directives  98/56/EC,  2000/29/EC  and  2008/90/EC,  Regulations  (EC)  No  178/2002,  (EC)  No 
882/2004  and  (EC)  No  396/2005  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  Directive 
2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  repealing  Council  Decisions  66/399/EEC, 
76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC (Official Journal of the European Union L 189, 27.6.2014, pp. 1–32) 
- ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/652/2019-12-14. 
Regulation  (EU)  2021/690  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021 
establishing  a  programme  for  the  internal  market,  competitiveness  of  enterprises,  including  small 
and  medium-sized  enterprises,  the  area  of  plants,  animals,  food  and  feed,  and  European  statistics 
(Single Market Programme) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) 
No 254/2014 and (EU) No 652/2014 (Official Journal of the European Union L 153, 3.5.2021, pp. 
1–47) - ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/690/oj. 
Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2024/2509  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 
September  2024  on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  (recast) 
ELI: 
(Official 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj. 
Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2018/1046  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  July 
2018  on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union,  amending  Regulations 
(EU)  No  1296/2013,  (EU)  No  1301/2013,  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  (EU)  No  1304/2013,  (EU)  No 
1309/2013,  (EU)  No  1316/2013,  (EU)  No  223/2014,  (EU)  No  283/2014,  and  Decision  No 
541/2014/EU  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  (Official  Journal  of  the 

26.9.2024) 

European 

Journal 

Union 

the 

L, 

of 

– 

1 

 
 
retrospective  evaluation  of  major  EU-funded  programmes  and  activities  entailing  significant 
spending in order to assess and ensure transparency, accountability and performance. Therefore, 
although  the  European  Commission  was  originally  mandated  to  conduct  an  ex-post  evaluation 
provided in Article 42 of the CFF Regulation – to determine the extent to which measures6 and 
programmes  executed  under  the  CFF  have  achieved  their  designated  objectives7  –  the  main 
objective  of  this  evaluation  is  to  meet  the  legal  obligation  as  set  out  in  Article  277(4)  of 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. 

Regarding  the  deadline  for  the  ex-post  evaluation,  Article  42(2)  of  the  CFF  Regulation  set  a 
deadline of 30 June 2022. However, since the CFF Regulation was repealed by Regulation (EU) 
2021/690  (SMP),  this  deadline  is  no  longer  valid  but  the  obligation  for  the  report  remains  in 
place,  as  stipulated  by  Article  34(3)  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2018/1046.  After  the 
mentioned  Financial  Regulation  was  repealed,  the  same  obligation  continues  to  be  stipulated 
from Financial Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509, Article 277(4). As such, no explicit legal 
deadline is set anymore (as confirmed by the Legal Services). 

In addition, under the new legal basis, there is no legal requirement to share the report with the 
European  Parliament  and  European  Council,  neither  to  make  it  publicly  available.  This  is 
fundamentally  an  evaluation  of  the  work  programme,  in  line  with  the  Financial  Regulation. 
However,  following  finalisation  of  the  report,  it  will  be  made  publicly  available  through  the 
SANTE website, similarly to the mid-term report for the same work programme.  

The key areas covered by the CFF Regulation include funding for veterinary and  phytosanitary 
programmes,  emergency  measures,  official  controls,  training,  and  capacity  building  to  help 
ensuring  a  high  level  of  food  chain  safety  across  the  EU,  promoting  health  and  safety  while 
mitigating  risks  associated  with  animal  and  plant  diseases.  This  assessment  focuses  on  the 
efficacy of resource allocation and application, and the Framework's contribution of added value 
at the Union level. This evaluative process contributes to ensuring the relevance  of the Union's 
financial instrument and its alignment with policy objectives. 

The  geographical  and  temporal  scope  of  this  ex-post  evaluation  encompasses  all  twenty-eight 
Member States (MSs) of the European Union (the United Kingdom left the Union on 31/1/2020) 
and  third  countries  that  benefited  from  EU  financial  support  under  the  CFF,  throughout  the 
programme period 2014-2020. The assessment incorporates pertinent data and findings from the 
mid-term evaluation report performed in 2016. It provides feedback for future implementation of 
the actions in the food chain area. The scope of the evaluation is limited in time from 2014 until 
2020. It covers territory of all EU MSs (28 during the programme period). 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  six  specific  measures  that  account  for  the  majority  of  the  allocated 
budget, as follows: 

a.  Measures addressing food safety and animal health: 

i.  Programmes for the eradication, control and surveillance of animal diseases and 

zoonoses  

ii.  Vaccine banks and emergency measures in the domain of animal health  

European Union L 193, 30.7.2018, pp. 1–222) - ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1046/2022-
12-14. 
Measures  referred  to  in  Chapters  I  and  II  of  Title  II  (respectively,  animal  health  and  plant  health 
measures) and in Articles 30 and 31 of Chapter III (respectively, EURLs and training activities). 
Objectives set out in Article 2(1). 

6  

7  

2 

 
 
b.  Measures addressing plant health: 

i.  Emergency measures for pest detection and containment  
ii.  Survey programmes concerning the presence and distribution of pests 

c.  Measures addressing official controls: 

i.  Financial support to European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) 
ii.  Training  activities  in  the  food  chain,  notably  through  the  Better  Training  for 

Safer Food (BTSF) initiative. 

This  evaluation  aligns  with  the  objectives  specified  in  Article  2(1)  of  the  CFF  Regulation, 
particularly concerning the contribution to a high level of health for humans, animals, and plants 
along  the  food  chain  and  in  related  areas,  while  supporting  the  improvement  of  the  welfare  of 
animals,  contributing  to  a  high  level  of  protection  for  consumers  and  the  environment,  and 
enhancing the competitiveness of the Union food and feed industry. 

In  view  of  the  above,  and  following  consultation  with  the  Legal  Services,  it  was  deemed 
appropriate to prepare this report in the form of a standalone Staff Working Document (SWD). 

For  the  preparation  of  the  present  standalone  SWD,  extensive  internal  consultation  took  place 
during  the  preparatory  stage  of  report,  regarding  its  content,  structure,  and  mode  of 
communication, involving all related services, an Interservice Steering Group (ISSG) was though 
not called. 

1.2  Methodology 

The evaluation builds on the basis of the five established criteria of EU programme assessment 
analysis,  using  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  research.  According  to  Better  Regulation 
Guidance  the  evaluation  criteria  applied  in  this  report  and  assessing  to  which  extent  the 
intervention  has  performed  in  terms  of:  effectiveness  (i.e.  meeting  objectives  and  fulfilling 
expectations); efficiency (i.e. cost-effectiveness and the extent to which costs are proportionate to 
benefits); relevance in light of current and emerging needs; coherence, both  internally and with 
other  EU  interventions;  and  EU  added  value  (i.e.  achieving  results  that  would  not  have  been 
attained by MSs acting alone).  

The  information  presented  in  this  report  was  primarily  compiled  through  desk  research, 
leveraging  existing  data  from  a  variety  of  sources,  such  as  evidence  obtained  through 
stakeholders’  consultation,  literature  research,  analysis  of  operational  and  technical  indicators, 
review  of  audit  reports,  and  relevant  studies.  This  document  presents  an  assessment  of  final 
outcomes derived from analysis of implementation metrics and financial allocation data relating 
to  CFF  activities  and  incorporates  epidemiological  some  findings  and  relevant  supplementary 
information regarding the evolution of animal diseases and plant pests within MSs to illustrate it 
with practical examples. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION 

2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES 

The CFF was established to address critical challenges and needs relating to animal health, plant 
health, food and feed safety, and official controls within the EU. The EU is constantly facing a 
considerable  number  of  challenges  in  the  areas  of  animal  health  and  plant  health  (emerging 

3 

 
 
diseases of animals or plants, previously absent in the Union or diseases already present) that put 
at  risk  the  livestock,  plant production  and  even  public  health  of consumers  (zoonoses).  To this 
end, MSs need to implement structured surveillance and controlled activities planned in advance 
(animal/plant  disease  surveillance  and  control  programmes)  or  emergency  control  measures  in 
response  to  the  incursion  of  new  animal  diseases  /  plant  pests  (emergency  measures). 
Implementation  of  these  activities  requires  highly  specialised  scientific  and  technical  support 
provided by dedicated EURLs. In addition, the highly specialised nature of these activities and 
accompanying  EU  legislation  makes  it  necessary  to  provide  dedicated training  addressed to  all 
professionals involved, in the form of the BTSF initiative. 

All  the  above  stem  from  the  MSs’  obligation  to  comply  with  EU  legislation  related  to  the 
safeguard  and  preservation  of  animal  health  and  welfare,  plant  health,  public  health  and 
consumer  protection,  in  relation  to  products  of  animal  or  plant  origin,  including  food  and  feed 
safety. Most of these activities are official duties carried out by the competent authorities of the 
MSs or under their supervision, and are collectively described in the EU legislation under the title 
“Official Controls”. EURLs and the BTSF initiative offer the necessary support (technical input 
and training) in view of the ever-evolving scientific knowledge and legal instruments, necessary 
for the effective implementation of these official controls. 

To  help  MSs  meet  the  substantial  costs  associated  with  these  activities,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
652/2014  established  the  CFF  as  the  Union’s  funding  instrument.  Under  the  CFF,  the  EU 
provides co-financing for  MSs’ animal  health and  plant  health programmes and  for  emergency 
measures, and it also provides direct Union financing for activities that underpin the EU control 
system, notably EURLs and training activities (BTSF). In addition, the CFF supported the EU-
level procurement, establishment and maintenance of vaccine banks for selected animal diseases, 
strengthening preparedness and rapid response capacity across the Union.  Prior to its adoption, 
funding  in  these  areas  was  fragmented  across  multiple  financial  instruments,  resulting  in 
inefficiencies,  duplication  of  efforts,  inconsistent  implementation  across  MSs,  and  limited 
responsiveness to emerging threats. The lack of a harmonised funding structure created risks for 
public  and  animal  health,  plant  health,  and  consumer  safety,  and  impeded  the  effectiveness  of 
preventive measures, outbreak response, and overall biosecurity management within the Union.  

The intervention logic was structured around clearly defined financial measures and instruments, 
addressing specific areas such as animal and plant health emergencies, surveillance programmes, 
laboratory capacity building, and training initiatives. In many cases, the expected outcomes were 
measurable  improvements  in  outbreak  containment,  eradication  of  key  diseases  and  pests, 
improved laboratory  diagnostic capacity,  harmonised  official control systems,  and  strengthened 
MSs’  preparedness  and  response  capability.  However,  in  other  cases,  the  expected  outcomes 
were  not  quantifiable  in  terms  of  financial  benefits  or  other  types  of  benefits  that  can  be 
expressed using readily measurable units. In addition, epidemiological developments, in both the 
animal  health  and  plant  health  domains,  are  inherently  uncertain  and  at  times,  unpredictable. 
Consequently,  for  these  situations,  the  expected  outcome  was  not  assessed  against  a  specific 
baseline.  Instead,  the  level  of  implementation  of  the  necessary  activities  was  assessed  in  the 
knowledge  and  the  inevitable  acknowledgement  that  these  activities,  even  under  optimal 
implementation,  may  not  result  in  the  direct  /  immediate  improvement  of  epidemiological 
parameters (e.g. disease prevalence, geographical distribution, etc.). 

As  regards  interventions  related  to  animal  and  plant  health  (veterinary  and  phytosanitary 
programmes,  veterinary  and  phytosanitary  emergency  measures)  it  is  feasible  to  quantify  the 

4 

 
level of implementation of the activities planned or stemming from the response to an emergency 
(the equivalent of cost-efficiency analysis). Nevertheless, proper implementation of the relevant 
activities both in programmes as well as emergency measures does not always guarantee the final 
benefit in terms of animal disease or plant pest control. Evolution of epidemics depends on a vast 
number of factors of which many are out of common reach and cannot be predicted or controlled. 
In such cases, implementation of these actions is still justified by the expected social benefits for 
the  groups  of  citizens  directly  affected  by  the  corresponding  animal  diseases  or  plant  pests 
(farmers, rural populations, etc.). 

The success of these interventions was to be assessed based on five standard evaluation criteria:  

Relevance: Alignment of the interventions with the evolving needs of MSs and Union priorities 
in food safety, animal and plant health, and public health protection; 

Effectiveness: Achievement of intended objectives, such as reduced incidence of targeted animal 
and  plant  diseases,  improved  response  times  during  outbreaks,  and  improved  official  control 
practices; 

Efficiency: Cost-effectiveness of financial investments, ensuring optimal use of EU resources to 
maximise public health and economic benefits; 

EU Added Value: Demonstrable benefits from EU-level intervention compared to what could be 
achieved individually by MSs; 

Coherence:  Consistency  and  complementarity  with  broader  EU  policies,  strategies,  and 
international  frameworks,  such  as  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  General  Food  Law 
(GFL),  Animal  Health  Law  (Regulation  (EU)  2016/429),  and  international  collaborations  (e.g., 
GF-TADs coordination). 

2.2. POINT(S) OF COMPARISON 

The ex-post evaluation used as principal comparators the baselines established at the start of the 
CFF, documented in the mid-term work, against end-period results. Methodologically, this meant 
reading  the  five  Better  Regulation  criteria  against  (i)  the  programme’s  initial  objectives  and 
indicator  set,  (ii)  the  legal/financial  architecture  (eligibility  rules,  co-financing  rates,  budget 
ceiling),  and  (iii)  the  epidemiological  and  phytosanitary  situation  at  mid-term  versus  end-term. 
Evidence  sources  explicitly  included  the  mid-term  evaluation  and  its  stakeholder  inputs  as  the 
“before” reference point, complemented by the ex-post report’s own indicator analysis. 

Quantitative points of comparison comprised (a) commitments and trends from first to last year 
by measure (e.g., Table 1 comparing 2014 vs 2020 across veterinary programmes, plant surveys, 
emergency measures, EURLs and BTSF), (b) output and capacity metrics for Official Controls 
(growth  in  EURL  coverage  and  payments;  BTSF  budgets,  sessions  and  participation),  and  (c) 
plant-health  performance  figures  (requested  vs  paid  amounts  for  emergencies;  evolution  of  co-
funded surveys vis-à-vis the number of pests notified). These were read alongside the mid-term 
indicator baselines to judge progress in effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value over time. 

In general, where feasible, the baseline against which the outcome was compared at the end of 
the intervention, in the areas of animal health and plant health, was the epidemiological situation 
in  individual  MSs  and/or  the  EU  as  a  whole  just  before  the  initiation  of  the  CFF  (numbers  of 
outbreaks, geographical distribution). Assessment of the outcomes related to BTSF, the EURLs 

5 

 
and activities such as procurement (e.g. EU vaccine banks), did not use a baseline against which 
the  relevant  outcomes  should  be  assessed.  Instead,  assessment  was  based  on  the  quality  of 
implementation  of  the  planned  activities  (e.g.  proper  operation  of  the  EURLs,  delivery  of  a 
sufficient number of trainings by the BTSF, sufficient and timely procurement of vaccines for the 
EU vaccine banks, etc.). 

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

3.1  Current state of play 

The  CFF  operated  with  a  maximum  expenditure  ceiling  of  €1,891,936,000  (≈  €270.3  million 
average  per  year).  Commitments  evolved  across  funding  streams:  veterinary  programmes  and 
vaccine banks declined over the period, while allocations for animal/plant emergency measures, 
plant-health  survey  programmes,  EURLs  and  BTSF  increased.  MSs  were  the  beneficiaries; 
support  was  delivered  mainly  via  grants  (standard  50%  co-financing,  rising  to  75%/100%  in 
specified cases). 

On implementation, veterinary emergency measures totalled €231.86 million to  MSs and €8.31 
million to third countries, with sharp growth after 2016; disease-specific payments were highest 
for HPAI and ASF. Plant-health surveys saw co-funding rise from €7.59 million (2015) to €14.69 
million  (2020),  alongside  an  increase  in  identified  pests  (2016–2020),  reflecting  intensified 
surveillance.  EURL  funding  grew  from  €14.0  million  (44  labs)  in  2014  to  €20.73  million  (47 
labs)  in  2019,  strengthening  the  EU  reference  network.  BTSF  budgets  increased  moderately 
(2014–2019), maintaining substantial training delivery and e-learning uptake; 2020 activity was 
curtailed by COVID-19. 

4.  EVALUATIONS FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1  Overview of the implementation 

The  CFF  involved  an  average  annual  spending  of  EUR  270.3  million  with  a  maximum  total 
ceiling  for  expenditure  of  EUR  1  891  936  000  over  the  seven-year  period  2014–2020.  This 
represents  around  0.19%  of  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  commitment 
appropriations. Table 1 below shows the amounts committed during the period under evaluation.  

Table 1 - Commitments for the period 2014 - 2020 for CFF activities 

Commitments for the period 2014 - 
2020 for CFF activities 
Veterinary programmes and vaccines 
Plant health survey programmes 
Animal health and plant health 
emergency measures 
EURLs 
BTSF 
Total 

First year of 
implementation 
136,705,397 
7,585,000 

Last year of 
implementation 
99,029,528 
14,694,000 

Trend 

 - 37,675,868 
 + 7,109,000 

1,911,896 

63,915,746   + 62,003,850 

14,010,090 
16,170,000 
176,382,383 

20,730,600 
18,000,000 
216,369,874 

 + 6,720,510 
 + 1,830,000 
 39,987,492 

The main direct beneficiaries of the EU financial contribution made under the CFF were the MSs, 
which receive an EU financial contribution for the eligible costs incurred when implementing the 

6 

 
 
eligible  measures.  Both  the  eligible  measures  and  the  eligible  costs  are  listed  in  the  CFF 
Regulation. 

The  Union  financial  contribution  mostly  took  the  form  of  grants  and  procurements  with  very 
limited contributions to international organizations), with a basic  co-financing rate for grants of 
50% of the eligible costs that under specific conditions can be increased to 75% or 100%. 

4.2  Animal Health 

The  CFF  Regulation  contribution  for  animal  health  covers  the  implementation  of  veterinary 
programmes,  aimed  at  eradication,  control  or  surveillance  activities  for  animal  diseases  and 
zoonoses,  and  emergency  measures  on  animal  health.  The  diseases  eligible  for  EU  financial 
contribution  under  veterinary  emergency  measures  and  programmes  are  listed,  respectively,  in 
Annex I and in Annex II to the CFF Regulation. The eligible costs (including, for example, the 
costs of animal slaughtering/culling and the vaccination costs) are also listed in specific articles 
of that Regulation. Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists the priorities for Union financial support 
as regards the orientation of veterinary programmes: based on these priorities for funding, 10 out 
of  the  25  diseases  listed  in  Annex  II  to  the  CFF  Regulation  had  been  initially  identified8  as 
priority  diseases.  These  were  African  swine  fever  (ASF);  avian  influenza  in  poultry  and  wild 
birds;  classical  swine  fever  (CSF);  rabies;  bovine  brucellosis;  ovine  and  caprine  brucellosis; 
transmissible  spongiform  encephalopathies  (TSEs);  zoonotic  Salmonella;  bovine  tuberculosis; 
bluetongue in endemic or high-risk areas. 

Payments  for  veterinary  programmes  make  up  almost  half  of  the  expenditure  foreseen  in  the 
maximum  total  ceiling.  Expenditure  has  progressively  declined  over  the  course  of  the  period, 
with the largest payments occurring during the first three years of implementation (2014, 2015, 
and  2016).  While  the  total  spending  for  veterinary  programmes  is  consistent,  payments  for 
animal health emergency measures are by definition not predictable, depending on the changes in 
the epidemiological situation over the years. 

4.2.1  Veterinary Programmes (Figure 1) 

Over  the  period  considered,  the  programmes  addressing  five  diseases,  namely  bovine 
tuberculosis,  TSE  (BSE  and  scrapie),  rabies  eradication,  Salmonella,  and  Brucella  melitensis 
represented around 83% of the payments for veterinary programmes (please see  Figure 4). The 
main  recipients  of  co-funding  of  veterinary  programmes  were  Spain  (21%  of  total  amounts 

200000000

150000000

100000000

50000000

0

Amount after
reallocation

Amount
reimbursed

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 1 - Total amounts (EURO) per year of allocations and reimbursements for national veterinary 
programmes during the period of 2014 to 2020 

8  

These diseases were listed in Commission Staff Working  document SWD(2017) 314 final, part of 
the  Document 52017DC0546  accompanying  the  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council (mid-term evaluation). 

7 

 
 
reimbursed  for  veterinary  programmes),  the  UK  (19%),  Italy  (11%),  Ireland  (8%)  and  Poland 
(7%). 
Relevance:  The  allocation  of funds  for  national  plans  aligns  with the  priorities  of  both  the  EU 
and MSs. The diseases selected for control under the national plans are of significant concern for 
public  and  animal  health,  as  well  as  for  the  agri-food  sector.  The  funds  allocated  for  the 
prevention  and  control  of  these  diseases  have  been  focused  on  the  most  relevant  activities  for 
achieving long-term disease eradication, also improving disease surveillance. 

EU  added  value:  The  financial  support  enabled  MSs  to  implement  national  plans  that  would 
have otherwise been beyond their financial capacity. This EU support enhanced the capacity of 
MSs to address eradication of these diseases more effectively and to prevent its re-emergence. 

Effectiveness: The funding has proven to be effective in reducing the incidence of outbreaks and 
for reaching disease-free status, enhancing surveillance systems, and accelerating the eradication 
of targeted diseases with measurable improvements in rabies, Tuberculosis, Brucellosis and TSEs 
as well, based on data from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) TSEs surveillance reports 
(2015-2021). 

Efficiency: The financial resources allocated under the national plans have been used efficiently, 
with a clear focus on maximising the impact of each euro spent. The implementation was carried 
out with a high degree of administrative efficiency. The use of unit costs and ceilings for certain 
programmes,  such  as  the  vaccination  of  livestock  against  Brucella  melitensis  and  rabies 
streamlined  administrative  procedures,  reducing  the  burden  on  national  authorities  and 
facilitating quicker disbursement of funds. Furthermore, the co-financing arrangements under the 
CFF allowed MSs to leverage additional national resources, enhancing the overall efficiency of 
spending without unnecessary administrative overhead. 

Annual  exercise  of  funding  reallocation  was  an  essential  instrument  to  boost  efficiency.  The 
graphical representation of the total amount (per year) after reallocation and amount reimbursed 
can be found in the graph below. Detailed data relating to the expenditure on the period between 
2014-2020 for allocation of money to MSs’ national plans regarding specific diseases, as well as 
amounts reimbursed per MS, can be found in figures 2 and 3 (respectively).  

Coherence: EU funding is coherent with other EU and MSs policies, particularly those related to 
food safety, public health, animal health and agriculture. The national plans align with the One 
Health approach, clearly illustrated by the significant reduction in human brucellosis cases (from 
460 in 2014 to 132 by 2020), as reported by EFSA in their EU One Health Zoonoses Reports9. 
The EU’s investments in surveillance for Avian Influenza and Salmonellosis not only benefited 
animal health but also contributed to human health and to ensuring the safety of food products. 
Moreover,  the  national  plans  were  designed  to  complement  other  EU  initiatives,  ensuring  that 
control measures for diseases such as Lumpy Skin Disease or Classical Swine Fever were aligned 
with broader EU agricultural policies, guaranteeing smooth functioning of the single market. 

9  

European  Food  Safety  Authority,  and  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and  Control.  "The 
European  union  one  health  2021  zoonoses  report." EFSA  Journal 20.12  (2022):  e07666, 
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7666. 

8 

 
 
LSD (2018-2020)

CSF (2014-2020)

2.000.000,00

1.500.000,00

1.000.000,00

500.000,00

0,00

3.000.000,00

2.500.000,00

2.000.000,00

1.500.000,00

1.000.000,00

500.000,00

0,00

2018

2019

2020

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

ASF (2014-2020)

Avian Influenza (2014-2020)

16.000.000,00

14.000.000,00

12.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

8.000.000,00

6.000.000,00

4.000.000,00

2.000.000,00

0,00

3.000.000,00

2.500.000,00

2.000.000,00

1.500.000,00

1.000.000,00

500.000,00

0,00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

TSE (2014-2020)

Rabies (2014-2020)

25.000.000,00

20.000.000,00

15.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

5.000.000,00

0,00

25.000.000,00

20.000.000,00

15.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

5.000.000,00

0,00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Figure 2 - Allocation and payments (EURO) to Member States’ national plans regarding specific diseases 

9 

 
 
SVD (2014-2015)

Tuberculosis (2014-2020)

1.000.000,00

800.000,00

600.000,00

400.000,00

200.000,00

0,00

70.000.000,00

60.000.000,00

50.000.000,00

40.000.000,00

30.000.000,00

20.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

0,00

2014

2015

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Melitensis (2014-2020)

Bluetongue (2014-2020)

18.000.000,00

16.000.000,00

14.000.000,00

12.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

8.000.000,00

6.000.000,00

4.000.000,00

2.000.000,00

0,00

9.000.000,00

8.000.000,00

7.000.000,00

6.000.000,00

5.000.000,00

4.000.000,00

3.000.000,00

2.000.000,00

1.000.000,00

0,00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Brucellosis (2014-2020)

Salmonellosis (2014-2020)

12.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

8.000.000,00

6.000.000,00

4.000.000,00

2.000.000,00

0,00

25.000.000,00

20.000.000,00

15.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

5.000.000,00

0,00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Amount after reallocation

Amount reimbursed

Figure 2 (cont.) - Allocation and payments (EURO) to Member States’ national plans regarding specific diseases 

10 

 
 
 
Veterinary programs - Amounts reimbursed to MSs (2014-2020)

 180.000.000,00

 160.000.000,00

 140.000.000,00

 120.000.000,00

 100.000.000,00

 80.000.000,00

 60.000.000,00

 40.000.000,00

 20.000.000,00

 -

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT

LU LV MT NL

PL

PT RO SE

SI

SK UK

Figure 3 - Payments (EURO) for veterinary programs by Member State (2014-2020) 

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

11 

 
 
Proportions of payments for specific diseases of the veterinary plans (2014-2020)

347.680.890,22 

26.974.594,04 

15.460.451,24 

30.291.282,49 

58.200.435,77 

7.216.354,96 

3.828.290,82 

63.400.789,80 

110.738.630,70 

77.770.938,97 

99.327.504,25 

1.164.892,41 

ASF

Avian influenza

Bluetongue

Brucellosis CSF

LSD Melitensis

Rabies

Salmonellosis

SVD TSE

Tuberculosis

Figure 4 - Proportions of payments (EURO) for Member States by disease (2014-2020) 

12 

 
 
 
4.2.2  Vaccine banks 

Vaccine banks are strategic reserves of critical veterinary vaccines or antigens maintained by the 
EU  to  ensure  its  immediate  availability  during  outbreaks  of  certain  transboundary  animal 
diseases.  They  represent  a  crucial  preventive  measure  within  the  EU's  broader  animal  health 
strategy10,  particularly  for  diseases  with  potentially  significant  economic  and  public  health 
impacts, such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), CSF, Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD), Peste des 
Petits Ruminants (PPR), and Sheep and Goat Pox (SGP). Vaccine banks enable rapid deployment 
of emergency vaccination, thus facilitating swift containment and minimizing the consequences 
of outbreaks. 
Relevance: Vaccine banks proved highly relevant, strategically targeting critical animal diseases 
(FMD,  LSD,  CSF)  aligned  with  emerging  threats  in  the  EU,  ensuring  swift  and  effective 
responses and significantly contributing to EU animal health priorities. 

Effectiveness:  This EU funding indicates an efficient preparedness and reassurance that the EU 
was  prepared  to  deploy  resources  swiftly  in  critical  areas.  Comparing  these  vaccine  bank 
investments  with  other  allocations  (emergency  measures,  outbreak  management,  national 
veterinary plans), we observe strong coherence and complementarity with significant investments 
in  vaccine  banks.  This  is  particularly  clear  for  LSD  (see  figure  5),  where  substantial  amounts 
were  paid  leading  to  an  effective  support  of  MSs  capacity  to  respond  to  outbreaks,  which 
significantly  contributed  to  the  rapid  containment,  mitigation  of  economic  impacts,  and 
successful control of these diseases. 

Efficiency:  During  the  period  2014–2020,  the  EU  allocated  significant  financial  resources  to 
vaccine  banks,  reflecting  targeted  strategic  priorities.  Notably,  FMD  received  the  highest 
investment,  totalling  approximately  €20.9  million  across  several  years  (2014,  2017,  2019,  and 
2020),  underscoring  the  high-risk  status  and  substantial  economic  threat  posed  by  this  disease. 
This  indicates  a  focused  EU  response  to  outbreaks  or  heightened  risks.  LSD  also  received 
considerable  investment,  with  around  €7  million  allocated  in  2016–2017  (€3.52  million  and 
€3.51 million,  respectively),  a  period  coinciding  with  major  outbreaks  within  and  near the  EU, 
highlighting  timely,  preventive  deployment  of  resources.  Vaccine  banks  for  diseases  like  PPR 
(€62,230.00, which was only a small fraction of the initial allocation, since there was no demand 
for PPR vaccines) received comparatively modest funding. There was an amount committed in 
2018  for  SGP,  yet  no  payment  was  completed,  which  indicates  that  no  additional  funding  was 
required for SGP that year. Additionally, moderate funding was allocated for CSF (€435,050 in 
2015).  This  funding  reduced  the  overall  costs  associated  with  disease  outbreaks,  thus 
demonstrating a positive benefit-to-cost ratio. 

EU added value: EU funding for vaccine banks provides clear added value by enabling MSs to 
access vaccines for high-priority diseases that otherwise would have relied on 28 national vaccine 
banks  for  the  different  diseases.  EU's  collective  funding  allows  for  a  coordinated  approach  to 
disease management, where individual countries may lack sufficient resources to respond rapidly 
to outbreaks. 

10  

From  2007,  the  EU  embraced  a  new  motto  as  part  of  its  Animal  Health  Strategy:  "prevention  is 
better than cure", put in motion by the European Commission. The aim was to focus on preventive 
measures, disease surveillance, controls and research. 

13 

 
 
€21.000.000,00
€20.500.000,00
€20.000.000,00
€19.500.000,00
€19.000.000,00
€18.500.000,00
€18.000.000,00
€17.500.000,00
€17.000.000,00
€16.500.000,00
€16.000.000,00
€15.500.000,00
€15.000.000,00
€14.500.000,00
€14.000.000,00
€13.500.000,00
€13.000.000,00
€12.500.000,00
€12.000.000,00
€11.500.000,00
€11.000.000,00
€10.500.000,00
€10.000.000,00
€9.500.000,00
€9.000.000,00
€8.500.000,00
€8.000.000,00
€7.500.000,00
€7.000.000,00
€6.500.000,00
€6.000.000,00
€5.500.000,00
€5.000.000,00
€4.500.000,00
€4.000.000,00
€3.500.000,00
€3.000.000,00
€2.500.000,00
€2.000.000,00
€1.500.000,00
€1.000.000,00
€500.000,00
€0,00

€6.912.000,00

€2.031.283,29

€8.769.266,41

€3.514.151,56

€435.050,00

€3.141.125,51

€3.523.938,93

€62.230,00

€0,00

Classical Swine
Fever

Foot and Mouth
Disease

Lumpy Skin Disease

Peste des Petits
Ruminants

Sheep Pox

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 5 - EU allocated funds for vaccine banks during the period of 2014 to 2020 

Coherence: The EU funding for vaccine banks is coherent with the EU's regulatory framework 
for disease control, which provide for the disease specific vaccine banks, such as for example, the 
Directives regulating FMD and CSF. 

4.2.3  EU funding for emergency measures on animal health 

Emergency measures represent one of the most critical and immediate applications of EU animal 
health  policy,  providing  financial  support  to  MSs  and  under  certain  conditions,  also  to 
neighbouring  third  countries  facing  outbreaks  of  high-impact  animal  diseases.  These  measures 
include actions such as stamping out, urgent vaccination, and surveillance.  

The evaluation stresses the importance of the EU’s swift and flexible response in these situations 
to limit the spread of infectious diseases across MSs. The funds allocated to emergency measures 
are  aimed  at  co-financing  urgent  control  and  eradication  activities  for  certain  major  diseases, 
supporting MSs to comply with EU legislation and minimise risks to animal health.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.3.1  Payments for veterinary emergency measures (2014-2020) to Member States and 

Third Countries 

Table 2 - Payments in euros for veterinary emergency measures to Member States and Third Countries during the 
period of 2014 to 2020 

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total (2014-
2020) 

Payments to Member States (EUR) 

Payments to Third Countries (EUR) 

1,911,896.08 

11,761,625.86 

18,816,510.64 

49,079,185.50 

46,943,759.46 

52,197,137.92 

51,150,939.90 

231,861,055.36 

0.00 

391,864.60 

3,023,146.21 

39,300.00 

3,451,241.04 

206,206.72 

1,197,773.03 

8,309,531.60 

Table 3 - Payments in euros for veterinary emergency measures for specific animal diseases during the period of 2014 
to 2020 

Disease 

Payment (EUR) 

African Swine Fever 

Bluetongue 

82,359,848.87 

1,061,549.35 

Exotic Diseases (FMD, PPR, SGP, LSD)11 

2,553,346.02 

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

130,124,866.86 

Lumpy Skin Disease 

Newcastle Disease 

Peste des Petits Ruminants 

Rabies 

Sheep and Goat Pox 

Total for all diseases 

18,297,184.02 

1,332,882.52 

417,750.00 

698,027.87 

3,325,131.45 

240,170,586.96 

11  

Along EU's eastern external border areas 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Between 2014 and 2020, the EU paid a total of approximately €231.86 million to MSs and €8.31 
million to third countries for emergency measures. These payments increased sharply during the 
period:  after  a  modest  start  in  2014  (about  €1.9  million  to  MSs  and  none  to  third  countries), 
funding rose considerably, peaking in 2019–2020, with annual allocations exceeding €50 million 
to  MSs.  The  detailed  graphic  representation  regarding  allocation  of  funds  for  emergency 
measures in animal health, per year, per country, can be found in figure 6. This evolution mirrors 
the  evolving  epidemiological  landscape  in  the  EU,  marked  by  significant  threats  such  as  ASF, 
LSD,  Avian  Influenza,  and  others.  The  trend  of  sharply  increasing  emergency  funding, 
particularly after 2016, reflects the growing scale of outbreaks. 

i.  Payments to Member States:  

The  increase  in  payments  in  2017  (compared  to  €11.76  million  in  2015)  reflects  significant 
outbreaks  or  increased  disease risks in that  year.  The  large €49.08 million  payment  indicates  a 
high level of intervention and EU support for the emergency response. There was consistency in 
payments from 2017-2020 (around €46-52 million). Total payments of €231.86 million over the 
seven-year period reflect a substantial EU investment in emergency disease control.  

ii.  Payments to Third Countries:  

The  payments to third  countries  were much  lower,  with a  total  of  €8.31  million  over the same 
period. 2018 saw the highest payment to third countries (€3.45 million), to support neighbouring 
countries in dealing with outbreaks of diseases like LSD, rabies or ASF, which may have posed a 
risk of spreading to the EU. The low payments in 2017 (€39,30) and 2019 (€206,21) suggest that 
in  those  years,  the  EU's  external  support  was  more  targeted  or  limited  to  specific  outbreaks  or 
regions  with  higher  risk  of  cross-border  disease  transmission.  In  2020,  the  payment  of  €1.20 
million  was  part  of  a  response  to  ongoing  concerns  regarding  disease  outbreaks  affecting 
neighbouring  regions,  possibly  in  response  to  threats  like  ASF  in  the  eastern  EU  borders  or  in 
regions like the Western Balkans. 

16 

 
 
Veterinary Emergency Measures (2014-2020)

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

50.000.000

45.000.000

40.000.000

35.000.000

30.000.000

25.000.000

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

Figure 6 - Payments (EURO) for veterinary emergency measures (2014-2020) to Member States and Third Countries 

17 

 
 
Veterinary Emergency Measures (2014-2020) for specific animal diseases

TAD

SGP

RAB

PPR

ND

LSD

HPAI

EXOT DIS

Bluetongue

ASF

60.000.000,00

50.000.000,00

40.000.000,00

30.000.000,00

20.000.000,00

10.000.000,00

0,00

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 7 - Payments (EURO) for veterinary emergency measures (2014-2020) regarding specific animal diseases 

18 

 
 
4.2.3.2  Payments for veterinary emergency measures (2014-2020) regarding specific 

animal diseases (see figure 7) 

Relevance: The payments are directed toward high-risk diseases and emerging threats, ensuring 
that rapid response measures (such as vaccination, surveillance, and eradication programmes) are 
in place. 

EU added value: Payments made to MSs and third countries in response to emergency measures 
demonstrate the EU’s substantial added value in mitigating the risks posed by infectious diseases. 
The  EU’s  co-financing  role  ensures  that  MSs  and  neighbouring  countries  can  implement 
necessary measures.  

Effectiveness: The high payments for ASF and HPAI show that the EU has been responsive to 
urgent threats, while also preventing cross-border spread through neighbouring country support 
(e.g., third countries receiving funds for ASF control).  

Efficiency:  Payments  show  a  flexible  and  adaptive approach to  disease  control.  The  allocation 
was strategic and efficiently used, characterised by timely, targeted interventions aligned closely 
with  epidemiological  risks  and  disease  dynamics,  leveraging  financial  resources  to  achieve 
maximum protection and minimal disease-related disruption across MSs and third countries. 

Coherence:  The  financial  support  for  emergency  measures  is  coherent  with  the  EU’s  broader 
animal health, public health, and food safety goals. By prioritising diseases like ASF, HPAI, and 
LSD,  the  EU’s  intervention  strategy  aligns  closely  with  existing  disease  control  directives 
applicable during the evaluation period, as well as with the requirements subsequently defined by 
Regulation (EU) 2016/42912 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). Moreover, 
specific veterinary programmes and emergency measures targeting zoonotic diseases (including 
Salmonellosis,  TSEs,  Brucellosis  and  HPAI)  highlight  a  clear  coherence  with  the  One  Health 
approach.  These  initiatives  concurrently  address  animal  health  and  public  health  protection, 
effectively  harmonising  disease  prevention  and  control  strategies  at  the  human-animal-
environment  interface.  Such  a  comprehensive,  integrated  strategy  illustrates  the  coherent 
application of EU financial instruments in addressing multi-faceted health risks across the MSs 
and neighbouring countries. 

4.2.4  Case studies on animal diseases  

This ex-post report describes in depth the allocation of these funds in relation to outbreaks of five 
distinct animal diseases, serving as illustrative case studies: rabies, LSD, CSF, and ASF. 

4.2.4.1  Rabies (2014-2020) 

12  

Regulation  (EU)  2016/429  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2016  on 
transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health 
(‘Animal 
ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/2021-04-21. 

31.3.2016, 

Health 

Law’) 

084 

(OJ 

1) 

p. 

L 

- 

19 

 
 
 
Rabies outbreaks in the EU between 2014 and 2020 (see figure 8), show the relationship between 
the  allocation  of  EU  funding  under  the  CFF  and  the  evolution  of  rabies  outbreaks.  There  is  a 
spike  in  the  number  of  cases  in  2014  (298),  mostly  due  to  wildlife  cases  (229),  followed  by  a 
significant reduction in the subsequent years. After 2014, the trend shows a consistent and sharp 
decrease in both total and wildlife rabies  cases until 2017, followed by slight fluctuations until 
2020.  From  2017  onwards,  the  number  of  rabies  cases  has  been  consistently  low,  indicating 
effective containment thanks to vaccination. 

Rabies outbreaks in the EU (2013-2020)

325

300

275

250

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total number of rabies outbreaks in the EU

Rabies outbreaks in wildlife in the EU

Figure 8 – Rabies outbreaks (2013-2020) 

In  2020,  despite  an  increase  in  total  cases  (14),  wildlife  cases  remained  low  (6).  The  sharp 
decrease  in  wildlife  cases  from  2015  onwards  demonstrates  that  vaccination  programmes  (oral 
rabies  vaccine  baits),  historically  supported  by  EU  funding,  have  been  successful.  In  2020, the 
slight  rise  in  non-wildlife  cases  indicates  pockets  of  vaccination  gaps  or  increased  contact 
between wildlife and domestic animals, emphasizing the ongoing need for surveillance and rapid 
response despite overall control successes in wildlife. 

The  CFF  Regulation  explicitly  emphasizes  EU  co-financing  of  disease  prevention  and 
eradication, including rabies. Funding is directed towards: 

•  Vaccination programmes in wildlife populations (oral rabies vaccine baits) 
•  Surveillance and monitoring activities 

EU funding for vaccine banks for rabies specifically was relatively low compared to the budget 
allocated and spent for other diseases like Avian Influenza, ASF or even LSD. The decrease in 
total rabies outbreaks post-2014 aligns with the implementation of EU-co-funded vaccination and 
surveillance  programmes  and  the  broader  EU  initiatives  (e.g.,  long-standing  vaccination 
programmes  prior  to  and  during  the  CFF  period)  contributed  significantly  to  reducing  rabies 
cases. The consistently low number of outbreaks from 2017 onwards indicates sustained positive 
outcomes from vaccine programmes funded before or alongside the CFF initiative.  

20 

 
Relevance:  The  substantial  outbreak  burden  recorded  in  2014  demonstrated  the  need  for 
sustained, coordinated intervention capacity. The problem was intrinsically transboundary rather 
than  only  national:  with  approximately  three-quarters  of  2014-2015  outbreaks  occurring  in 
wildlife,  effective  control  required  coordinated  measures  beyond  what  individual  MSs  could 
optimise independently. 

Effectiveness:  The  outbreak  trend  demonstrates  substantial  epidemiological  improvement 
following  the  2014  peak,  consistent  with  effective  control  measures.  There  was  a  significant 
decline in all outbreaks during the analysed period, and the evidence supports a finding that CFF-
supported  national  measures  facilitated  a  transition  from  high  incidence  to  a  low-incidence 
maintenance  phase,  with  occasional  fluctuations  that  remain  epidemiologically  plausible  under 
effective control programmes. 

Efficiency: The combination of modest expenditure relative to the scale of the 2014 spike and the 
subsequent  multi-year  reduction  suggests  a  “good  value  for  money”  interpretation,  while 
recognising that a strict quantitative efficiency assessment is not possible from these sums alone. 

EU  added  value:  Given  that  approximately  74%  of  all  outbreaks  in  this  period  were  wildlife 
cases  and  wildlife-mediated  spread  ignores  administrative  borders,  EU-level  co-financing 
provides added value by enabling consistent minimum capacity across MSs and supporting rapid 
mobilisation when risks concentrate in specific regions. 

Coherence:  The  rabies  emergency  measures  budget  aligns  with  the  EU's  broader  strategy  of 
combining prevention, early detection, and rapid intervention for listed diseases, complementing 
longer-term veterinary programmes covering surveillance, vaccination, and control capacity. As a 
zoonotic  disease,  rabies  measures  are  consistent  with  EU  food-chain  risk  governance  and 
zoonoses control objectives, despite wildlife being the primary epidemiological driver rather than 
production animals. 

In conclusion: 

•  The  data  shows  a  clear  positive  correlation  between  targeted  EU  financial 

intervention and a significant reduction in rabies outbreaks post-2014 

•  Wildlife vaccination programmes, supported by EU funding prior to and during the 
CFF, were highly effective in controlling rabies, especially after the spike in 2014 
•  The  persistence  of  low  outbreak  numbers  from  2017  onwards  demonstrates 
sustained effectiveness of these interventions and highlights the EU's critical role in 
disease control even with limited targeted investments 

4.2.4.2  Lumpy Skin Disease outbreaks (2014-2020) 

The presence of LSD at EU borders posed a significant risk of entry into the EU. In 2015 and 
2016, LSD outbreaks occurred within the EU for the first time, with notable numbers in Greece 
(117 outbreaks in 2015, and 104 in 2016) and Bulgaria (217 outbreaks in 2016) (see figure 9). A 
significant decline in outbreaks within the EU occurred after 2016, dropping considerably to just 
2 cases in Greece in 2017 and no reported cases from 2018 to 2020. A parallel reduction is also 
observed  in  the  EU  and  neighbouring  countries  combined,  indicating  effective  disease  control 
and containment measures at regional level. This coordinated and harmonised regional approach  

21 

 
 
was reinforced by the Global Framework for the Progressive Control of Transboundary Animal 
Diseases’  (GF-TADs)  mechanism,  which  facilitated  cross-border  collaboration,  information 
exchange,  and  harmonisation  of  preventive  measures,  thus  significantly  contributing  to  the 
sustained reduction and control of LSD across affected regions. The EU outbreaks were managed 
effectively  through  rapid  EU  co-funding  and  coordinated  response.  This  coordinated  regional 
response minimised risks and provided a buffer zone of vaccinated populations surrounding the 
EU. 

Outbreaks of LSD (2014-2020)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

LSD outbreaks in EU

Total number of LSD outbreaks in the EU and neighbouring countries

Figure 9 - Lumpy Skin Disease outbreaks (2014-2020) 

The  EU  provided  substantial  funding  for  emergency  measures  related  to  LSD,  specifically 
€18,297,184.02 total for the period 2014–2020. Of this amount: 

•  €11,318,022.94 (2016): allocated for LSD control measures in Greece, Bulgaria, and 
neighbouring  third  countries,  including  compensation  for  affected  animals  and 
vaccines 

•  €5,858,919.98 (2017–2018): allocated specifically for vaccine procurement for both 

MSs and third countries 

•  €1,120,241.10 

(2019–2020):  used  specifically 

for  LSD  vaccine  costs 

in 

neighbouring third countries 

These  figures  indicate  targeted  investments  during  the  critical  outbreak  years,  notably  in  2016 
and 2017–2018. 

The EU’s decision to fund vaccine campaigns in neighbouring third countries (€5.86 million in 
2017–2018, and €1.12 million in 2019–2020) shows a coherent and strategic regional approach. 
The  sharp  decline  in  regional  outbreaks  (from  1129  in  2016,  to  just  5  in  2020)  in  these 
neighbouring countries, demonstrates the success of this broader regional strategy.  

Relevance: The critical transboundary risk of LSD (2015–2017) justified substantial EU funding, 
including  €18.3  million  for  emergency  measures  and  €7  million  for  vaccine  banks  to  mitigate 
regional pressure and internal outbreaks. 

22 

 
Effectiveness:  The  sharp  and  sustained  decline  of  LSD  outbreaks  from  2017  onward  strongly 
supports  the  effectiveness  of  EU  financial  interventions  (vaccination  campaigns,  animal 
compensations, monitoring, and surveillance) 

Efficiency:  Targeted  funding  at  critical  periods  (2016  for  immediate  outbreak  control,  and 
subsequent  regional  vaccination  programs  in  neighbouring  countries)  maximized  the  impact  of 
available resources, rapidly reducing outbreaks and preventing reintroduction into the EU 

EU  added  value:  The  intervention  clearly  demonstrates  significant  added  value  of  EU-level 
support.  Individual  MSs  alone  (Greece,  Bulgaria)  or  neighbouring  countries  may  have  lacked 
sufficient  resources  for  effective  vaccination,  containment,  and  compensation  measures.  The 
EU’s coordinated and financed response contributed to a regional-level containment 

Coherence:  Funding  was  coherent  with  the  broader  EU  animal  health  policy,  emphasising 
disease prevention, rapid response, and regional cooperation 

4.2.4.3  Classical Swine Fever outbreaks (2014-2020) 

Outbreaks of CSF during the period between 2014 and 2020 in Latvia (the only EU MS affected) 
decreased  notably  from  a  peak  of  28  total  outbreaks  (27  wild  boar,  1  kept  pig)  in  2014,  to  5 
outbreaks  (all  wild  boar,  none  in  kept  pigs)  in  2015  (see  figure  10).  From  2016  onwards,  no 
further  outbreaks  were  recorded,  ultimately  resulting  in  Latvia’s  removal  from  the  restricted 
zones list in October 2020 (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1525). CSF during 
this period included targeted support for: 

•  Surveillance  programmes,  especially  wild  boar  population  monitoring  and  disease 

detection 

•  Control  measures,  such  as  vaccination  (in  wildlife)  if  deemed  necessary,  fencing, 

enhanced biosecurity, and public awareness campaigns 

•  Emergency  measures  (if  and  when  outbreaks  occurred),  including  animal  culling 

(stamping out) and compensation schemes 

Total number of CSF outbreaks in the EU (2013-2020)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 10 - Classical Swine Fever outbreaks (2013-2020) 

23 

 
 
An analysis of the impact of the EU funding and CSF outbreak trends shows that, as regards the 
effectiveness  and  timing  of  funding,  the  substantial  decrease  in  outbreaks  from  28  (2014)  to  5 
(2015),  and  subsequently  to  zero  (from  2016  onward),  indicates  that  rapid  and  targeted  EU 
funding interventions played a decisive role in quickly containing and eradicating the disease.  

The observed trends in CSF outbreaks in Latvia provide compelling evidence that EU financial 
interventions for CSF in Latvia: 

•  Directly supported preventive and containment strategies at a critical moment 
•  Significantly  contributed  to  the  sharp  decline  in  outbreaks  and  their  sustained 

absence demonstrate long-lasting effectiveness of these measures 

•  Contributed to Latvia’s official removal from restricted zones and the lifting of all 
restrictions  by  October  2020  strongly  reflect  successful  EU-funded  disease 
eradication and control initiatives 

Specifically, the EU provided €435,050.00 allocated explicitly for the CSF vaccine bank in 2015. 

Relevance:  CSF  presented  a  targeted  yet  substantial  risk  in  the  CFF  period,  concentrated  in 
Latvia and driven primarily by wild boar. Even with limited geographic spread, EU intervention 
remained relevant because a single  MS outbreak can affect intra-EU trade, zoning and regional 
biosecurity, and the CFF specifically supports preparedness tools such as vaccine banks. 

Effectiveness:  Clear  evidence  of  rapid  and  sustained  disease  control  after  targeted  EU  funding 
intervention. 

Efficiency:  Investments  in  surveillance,  vaccine  banks,  and  other  measures  quickly  delivered 
significant  reductions  in  outbreaks.  The  rapid  achievement  of  disease-free  status  indicates 
efficient use of resources. 

EU added value: Latvia likely benefited significantly from EU support, as the national financial 
capacity  to  swiftly  and  effectively  control  the  disease  may  have  been  insufficient.  EU  funding 
thus clearly provided additional value beyond national efforts alone. 

Coherence:  Funding  and  measures  align  closely  with  broader  EU  policies  on  animal  health, 
biosecurity,  and  disease  eradication.  Latvia’s  successful  eradication  aligns  coherently  with 
overarching EU animal health and public health objectives. 

4.2.4.4  African Swine Fever outbreaks (2014-2020) 

Regarding ASF outbreaks, the situation was more complex, as can be seen in figure 11. 

There was a significant rise in total ASF outbreaks between 2014 and 2020, primarily driven by 
outbreaks in wild boars. Outbreaks in wild boars increased notably and continuously from 334 in 
2014  to  10,869  in  2020.  The  number  of  outbreaks  in  domestic  pigs  decreased  significantly  in 
2020 (from 1,852 in 2019 down to 1,188 in 2020), despite ongoing high incidence in wild boars. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Numbers of outbreaks of ASF in the EU per year (2014-2020)

12.000

11.000

10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total outbreaks of ASF in domestic pigs in the EU
Total outbreaks of ASF in wild boars in the EU
Linear (Total outbreaks of ASF in domestic pigs in the EU)
Linear (Total outbreaks of ASF in wild boars in the EU)

Figure 11 - African Swine Fever outbreaks (2014-2020) 

ASF is particularly challenging to control because: 

•  Wild  boars  are  highly  adaptable  and  elusive,  facilitating  continued  virus  spread 

across broad geographical areas 

•  ASF  virus  remains  infectious  for  prolonged  periods  in  carcasses  and  the 

environment, making eradication highly challenging 

•  The  absence  of  a  safe  and  effective  vaccine  significantly  limits  control  and 

eradication measures 

Therefore,  given  the  involvement  of  wildlife  in  the  epidemiology  of  ASF,  these  inherent 
challenges meant that effective eradication of ASF was not possible within the reference period. 
The EU provided substantial financial support under the CFF for ASF management, including: 

•  Surveillance and early detection activities 
•  Enhanced biosecurity measures 
• 
•  Emergency measures (culling of infected domestic pigs, compensation schemes) 
• 

Intensive wild boar population management (culling, carcass removal, fencing) 

Information campaigns and public awareness initiatives 

Specifically,  EU  financial  support  allocated  towards  emergency  measures  regarding  ASF  from 
2014-2020  amounted  to  €82,359,848.87,  highlighting  significant  investment  in  disease  control. 
The successful containment of outbreaks in kept pigs is attributed to robust biosecurity protocols, 
swift  outbreak  response  (including  stamping-out  measures),  comprehensive  surveillance  and 
preventive  actions,  supported  by  EU  financial  mechanisms.  While  ASF  outbreaks  overall 
continued to rise, particularly in wild boars, EU funding played a crucial role in moderating the 

25 

 
 
impact  on  pig  farms,  preventing  the  escalation  of  outbreaks  in  kept  pigs.  The  significant 
reduction in kept pigs’ outbreaks observed in 2020 (from 1,852 to 1,188) further underscores the 
growing effectiveness and adaptation of these measures. 

Relevance: The absence of an effective vaccine during the period and the virus’s persistence in 
the  environment  made  EU  co-financing  for  surveillance,  rapid  response,  and  biosecurity 
measures directly pertinent to protecting animal production and the internal market. 

Effectiveness: Despite increasing wild boar cases, EU measures effectively limited transmission 
to kept pigs, especially in later years. The 2020 reduction in kept pig outbreaks demonstrates the 
evolving effectiveness of measures. 

Efficiency:  Targeted  investments  (biosecurity,  surveillance,  stamping-out)  efficiently  focused 
resources  on  protecting  the  critical  agricultural  sector  (kept  pig  farming),  thereby  containing 
potential larger economic losses. 

EU  added  value:  MSs  would  have  struggled  individually  to  implement  comprehensive  and 
coordinated ASF containment measures, particularly in border regions with high wildlife disease 
pressure. EU financial support provided critical resources, expertise, and coordination to reduce 
ASF's impact on kept pig populations significantly. 

Coherence:  Funded  actions  (wildlife  management,  biosecurity,  surveillance,  emergency 
responses)  align  closely  with  EU  policies  on  animal  health,  agricultural  sustainability,  food 
safety, and cross-border disease management frameworks. 

While ASF outbreaks increased considerably in wildlife populations between 2014 and 2020, the 
relatively moderate impact on kept pigs strongly indicates successful targeting and effectiveness 
of EU-funded measures under the CFF Regulation: 

•  The increasing numbers of outbreaks in wild boars reflect the challenges associated 
with wildlife disease control (virus stability, wildlife behaviour, absence of vaccine) 
•  The  controlled  and  reduced  transmission  to  kept  pigs  highlights  the  successful 
implementation of EU-funded containment and biosecurity measures, demonstrating 
significant EU added value and effectiveness 

•  The  clear  divergence  between  wild  boar  and  kept  pig  outbreak  trends  strongly 
supports the conclusion that EU financial interventions significantly mitigated ASF 
impacts on the economically critical pig farming sector 

The available data indicates that the implemented measures (subject to EU co-financing), such as 
wild  boar  management,  disease  surveillance,  biosecurity  measures,  measures  upon  disease 
confirmation,  etc.,  prevented  ASF  spread  within  the  kept  pigs’  population  (effective  disease 
barriers were created to slow down ASF spread from wild boars to kept pigs, and between kept 
pigs), thus moderating the disease impact. In fact, in 2020 there was a reduction in the number of 
ASF outbreaks in kept pigs, compared to 2019. 

The analysis of outbreak trends for Rabies, LSD, CSF, and ASF in the EU from  2014 to 2020 
clearly  demonstrates  that  targeted  EU  financial  interventions  under  the  CFF  Regulation  have 
significantly  contributed  to  the  control,  management,  and,  in  some  cases,  eradication  of  these 
animal diseases. 

26 

 
4.3 

Plant health 

The  CFF  Regulation  contribution  for  plant  health  covers  the  implementation  of  survey 
programmes,  which  are  aimed  to  support  early  detection  of  pests  in  the  EU  territory  and 
implement phytosanitary emergency measures in case of outbreaks. The list of pests eligible for 
EU co-financing under the survey programmes includes hundreds of harmful organisms, which 
are subject to an annual prioritisation. This list is not integrated in the CFF  Regulation but laid 
down in the specific plant health legislation. Survey programmes were first established and co-
financed  in  2015,  with  17  EU  countries  presenting  a  programme  in  2015  and  22  in  2016. 
Payments for 2015 survey amounted to EUR 4.2 million. 

The  implementation  of  phytosanitary  emergency  measures  is  instead  developed  for  a  limited 
number of pests which deserve a more targeted control strategy in order to prevent further spread 
and  introduction  into  the  rest  of  the  Union  territory.  Among  other  pests,  emergency  measures 
have  been  developed  so  far  for  Xylella  fastidiosa,  Bursaphelenchus  xylophilus  (so 
called:"Pinewood nematode")  Anoplophora chinensis and Anoplophora glabripennis, Pomacea, 
Epitrix  spp.,  whose  further  spread  into  the  Union  territory  can  cause  unacceptable  social, 
environmental and economic consequences. The objective of eradication of plant pests remains a 
complex  objective  to  achieve  due  to  lack  of  effective  treatment  solutions,  the  high  number  of 
susceptible plant species, population dynamics and lifecycle of pests and their vectors present in 
forests,  parks  and  plantations  with  high  economic,  social  and  environmental  value.  Very  few 
experiences  have  proven  that  eradication  is  possible  only  if  decisive  measures  are  put 
immediately in place. This was the case in two out of four outbreaks of Pinewood nematode in 
Spain,  two  outbreaks  of  Anoplophora  chinensis  in  Denmark  and  in  The  Netherlands  and  two 
outbreaks of Anoplophora glabripennis in Germany and in The Netherlands. However, when the 
pest  is  considered  to  be  established  in  a  certain  territory  and  eradication  is  no  longer  feasible, 
containment  measures  may  still  provide  sufficient  guarantees  to  prevent  further  spread  of  the 
pests in the Union territory. In this respect, for example, the EU financial support has allowed to 
successfully  contain  Pinewood  nematode  in  Portugal,  minimising  the  risk  of  further  spread  to 
neighbouring  MSs,  while  preserving  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  Similarly  to  the 
animal health area, although more limited in scale, the amount paid in plant health for emergency 
measures  varies substantially  between  years.  For the measures implemented  in 2014  and  2015, 
payments amounted to EUR 7.2 and EUR 0.9 million, respectively. In the period considered, as 
far as emergency measures are concerned, three pests alone, namely Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, 
Anoplophora  glabripennis  and  Pomacea  insularum,  were  responsible  for  almost  all  payments 
(91%) for plant health emergency measures. 

4.3.1 Phytosanitary emergency measures 

An  analysis  of  EU  Funding  for  emergency  measures  on  Plant  Health  (2016–2020)  and 
comparative  assessment  with  the  CFF  mid-term  evaluation  was  carried  out  with  the  following 
inferences. 

a)  Overview and funding proportions 

During  the  period  from  2016  to  2020,  MSs  requested  a  total  of  €86,839,297.57  from  the 
European  Commission  for  emergency  measures  targeting  plant  health  pests.  However,  the 
Commission  ultimately  paid  €43,885,292.13,  representing  approximately  50.5%  of  the  total 
funds requested. 

27 

 
Looking  at  the  annual  disbursements, there  is  a  clear  upward  trend in  total  funds  allocated  per 
year, with a notable surge in 2019 and 2020 (see figure 12). The marked increase in these years 
likely  reflects  heightened  phytosanitary  threats,  particularly  due  to  outbreaks  of  certain  high-
concern pests, as well as the maturation of MSs’ surveillance and eradication programmes. This 

35000000,00

30000000,00

25000000,00

20000000,00

15000000,00

10000000,00

5000000,00

0,00

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 12 - EU payments to Member States (in euros) for plant health emergencies during the period 
of 2016 to 2020 

MS requested amount

EU contribution

Linear (MS requested amount)

Linear (EU contribution)

tendency  towards  greater  expenditure mirrors  broader  EU  priorities in  plant  health,  notably the 
urgent  response  to  large-scale  incursions  and  the  escalating  threat  of  pests  such  as  Xylella 
fastidiosa, which received particularly substantial support in these later years. 

A breakdown of allocations to key pests (see figure 13 for detailed yearly EU funding per pest) 
provides further insight: 

•  Anoplophora glabripennis (Asian longhorned beetle): Approximately €15.7 million 
paid  (across  2016–2020),  representing  over  36%  of  total  funds  disbursed  in  this 
area. 

•  Bursaphelenchus  xylophilus  (Pine  wood  nematode):  Approximately  €7.8  million, 

about 18% of the total. 

•  Xylella fastidiosa: Approximately €14.3 million, or roughly 33% of the total, with 
the largest annual payments occurring in 2019 and 2020, reflecting the severity and 
expansion of outbreaks. 

•  Tecia solanivora (Guatemalan potato moth): Over €1.9 million. 
•  Ralstonia solanacearum (bacterial wilt): Nearly €0.5 million. 

28 

 
 
EU contribution for pests (2016)
Total: €4869917.92

EU contribution for pests (2017)
Total: €6366643.06

Anoplophora glabripennis

Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus
Meloidogyne graminicola

Pomacea maculata

Ralstonia solanacearum

Synchytrium
endobioticum
Tecia

Tryoza

Xylella fastidiosa

Anoplophora glabripennis

Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus
Meloidogyne graminicola

Pomacea maculata

Ralstonia solanacearum

Tecia

Tryoza

Xylella fastidiosa

EU contribution for pests (2018)
Total: €6371807.57

EU contribution for pests (2019)
Total: €14709890.10

Anoplophora chinensis

Anoplophora glabripennis

Bactrocera

Bursaphelenchus xylophilus

Meloidogyne graminicola

Pomacea maculata

Pomacea spp

Ralstonia solanacearum

Tecia

ToBRFV

Tryoza

Xylella fastidiosa

EU contribution for pests (2020)
Total: €11567033.49

Anoplophora chinensis

Anoplophora
glabripennis
Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus
Meloidogyne graminicola

Pomacea spp

Tecia

Tryoza

Xylella fastidiosa

Anoplophora chinensis

Anoplophora
glabripennis
Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus
Euwallacea fornicatus

Meloidogyne
graminicola
Pomacea maculata

Ralstonia
solanacearum
Tecia

ToBRFV

Tryoza

Xylella fastidiosa

Figure 13 - Overview of contribution (EURO) proportions for pests per year (period 2016-2020) 

29 

 
 
The  proportional  funding  devoted  to  Xylella  fastidiosa  and  Anoplophora  glabripennis 
underscores the EU’s risk-based prioritization, given these pests’ potential for rapid spread and 
high  economic/environmental  impact.  Funding  allocations  were  also  responsive  to  evolving 
threats,  as  reflected  by  the  uptick  in  Xylella  support  coinciding  with  its  devastating  spread  in 
southern  Europe.  The  mid-term  evaluation  of  CFF  Regulation  (covering  2014–2016)  observed 
that  the  plant  health  component  of  the  CFF  was  both  highly  relevant  and  increasingly  critical, 
especially with the appearance or intensification of new phytosanitary threats. However, the mid-
term review also noted several challenges: limited resources relative to the growing needs, and 
the necessity for rapid, flexible responses as new pests emerged. The evaluation recognised the 
flexible functioning of the CFF, which allowed redirection of resources to urgent phytosanitary 
priorities  as  needed,  yet  called  for  further  enhancements  in  crisis  preparedness  and  rapid 
mobilization of funds. 

The funding data from 2016–2020 indicates that the EU’s financial response became more robust 
and better targeted in subsequent years, as evidenced by the increased allocations, especially for 
Xylella  fastidiosa,  which  became  a  major  threat  after  the  period  covered  by  the  mid-term 
evaluation. The rapid growth in disbursements in 2019–2020 also aligns with the CFF’s intended 
flexibility and responsiveness, reflecting lessons learned from earlier years. 

Some key observations: 

•  The proportion of EU funding actually paid out compared to requested support (just 
over  50%)  suggests  continued  budgetary  constraint  or  strict  adherence  to  co-
financing and eligibility criteria. 

•  There is a marked increase in overall funding, especially from 2019 onward, driven 

largely by high-profile pest outbreaks. 

•  The  EU’s  funding  allocation  was  strongly  risk-based,  prioritizing  pests  with  the 

greatest potential to cause widespread agricultural and environmental harm. 

•  The significant increase in support for Xylella fastidiosa in later years demonstrates 
an  adaptive  approach,  with  the  CFF  able  to  redirect  funds  in  response  to  new  or 
expanding threats. 

•  Despite improvements, the persistent gap between funds requested and paid implies 

ongoing challenges in fully meeting MSs’ needs. 

b)  Assessment of funded actions for plant health emergency measures 

under the CFF (2016–2020) by evaluation criteria 

threats  such  as  Xylella 

Relevance: The actions funded under the CFF in the area of plant health have demonstrated high 
relevance  in  responding  to  evolving  phytosanitary  risks  across  the  EU.  The  emergence  and 
intensification  of 
fastidiosa,  Anoplophora  glabripennis,  and 
Bursaphelenchus  xylophilus  called  for  urgent,  well-targeted  intervention.  The  increasing 
allocation of funds for these pests (reflecting the evolving risk profile and outbreak data) shows 
that  CFF  resources  were  mobilized  to  address  the  most  pressing  plant  health  challenges.  This 
direct  alignment  with  epidemiological  and  pest  risk  trends  confirms  the  continued  policy 
relevance of the CFF in safeguarding the EU’s agricultural and environmental resources. 

EU  added  value:  The  added  value  of  EU  intervention  is  clear  in  several  respects.  Firstly,  the 
CFF facilitated a coordinated approach to transboundary plant health threats that individual MSs 
would have struggled to address alone. The pooling of financial resources and harmonisation of 
response  standards  (surveillance,  eradication,  compensation)  enhanced  collective  security  and 
reduced  the  risk  of  pest  spread  between  countries.  Secondly,  by  enabling  rapid  funding 

30 

 
mobilization,  the  CFF  strengthened  the  EU’s  ability  to  contain  outbreaks  and  minimize  cross-
border impacts, creating public goods that benefit all MSs. The strategic allocation of funds for 
high-impact  pests  like  Xylella  fastidiosa  is  a  testament  to  the  distinct  value  of  EU-level 
coordination and support. 

Effectiveness: The implementation of plant health actions under the CFF during 2016–2020 was 
effective  based  on  both  financial  and  operational  indicators.  The  substantial  and  increasing 
annual disbursements in response to expanding outbreaks indicate that the CFF was able to scale 
up  support  as  needed.  Furthermore,  the  targeted  nature  of  payments  (prioritizing  the  most 
dangerous pests) and the observed containment and/or eradication of several pest incursions point 
to positive outcomes. Overall, the flexible redirection of funds and responsiveness to new threats 
underpin the effective functioning of the CFF in this area. 

Efficiency:  Efficiency  considerations  reveal  a  mixed  picture.  On  the  one  hand,  the  risk-based 
prioritization  of  pests  and  the  flexible  reallocation  of  funds  maximized  the  impact  of  available 
resources,  aligning  with  best  practices  for  crisis  management  in  plant  health.  Administrative 
processes appear to have functioned well enough to disburse significant sums on an annual basis, 
with increases in funding closely mirroring outbreak escalations. On the other hand, the fact that 
only  about  half  of  requested  funds  were  ultimately  paid  indicates  some  inefficiency—possibly 
due to strict eligibility rules, delays in project execution, or challenges in substantiating costs.  

Coherence: Finally, the CFF’s plant health actions have shown strong coherence with other EU 
policies  and  instruments.  The  integration  of  financial  support  for  surveillance,  eradication,  and 
crisis  management  aligns  closely  with  the  EU’s  broader  plant  health  strategy  and  supports  the 
goals of the EU Plant Health Regulation. Furthermore, funding for cross-border pest threats has 
been  consistent  with  objectives  under  related  areas,  such  as  trade  facilitation,  environmental 
protection, and rural development. The CFF’s alignment with MS programmes, and its capacity 
to adjust support in light of new threats, further enhances policy coherence. 

4.3.2 Programmes concerning the presence of pests  

a)  Overview of funding allocation and number of pests 

The  CFF  supports  MSs  in  protecting  plant  health  through  targeted  survey  programmes,  which 
focus  on  the  early  detection,  monitoring,  and  management  of  plant  pests,  contributing  to 
safeguarding  agricultural  and  ecological  integrity  throughout  the  EU  territory.  The  data  from 
2015  to  2020  provide  a  basis  for  evaluating  the  impact  and  efficiency  of  these  programmes, 
particularly against the backdrop of increasing numbers of identified plant pests. 

The  charts  below  indicate  the  increase  during  this  period  of  the  EU  funding  allocated  for  pest 
survey  programmes,  and  parallel  to  this  financial  increase,  the  total  number  of  identified  plant 
pests across the EU grew considerably during the evaluated period. This evident rise in the total 
number of pests underlines both the increasing phytosanitary pressure on the EU territory and the 
growing challenge posed to plant health management. The total pest surveys per year per member 
state is detailed in figure 16. 

31 

 
 
b)  Assessment of funded actions for survey programmes on plant health 

under the CFF (2016-2020) by evaluation criteria 

Relevance: The significant and steady increase in the number of pests detected from 633 in 2016 
to 926 in 2020 clearly indicates the ongoing and escalating relevance of the EU-funded survey 
programmes. These programmes directly address an expanding threat landscape characterized by 
new  pest  incursions  and  increasing  geographic  distribution  of  pests  within  the  EU.  The 
progressive  rise  in  allocated  funds  aligns  closely  with  these  heightened  risks,  underscoring  the 
continued and growing relevance of EU support for surveys as an essential preventive measure. 

EU added value: The survey programmes demonstrate substantial EU added value by facilitating 
coordinated pest surveillance across MSs. Such coordination is indispensable for early detection 
and  rapid  response,  especially  for  pests  that  pose  cross-border  threats.  Without  this  EU-level 
intervention, MSs could face disparate surveillance standards and capabilities, potentially leading 
to uneven pest detection and inadequate collective responses. The joint approach fostered by the 
CFF thus enhances regional biosecurity and significantly reduces the likelihood of uncontrolled 
pest spread. 

926

820

765

744

633

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 14 - Total number of pests in the EU during the period of 2016 to 2020 

€13.977.000

€12.529.000

€13.135.000

€14.694.000

€11.514.000

€7.585.000

€16.000.000

€14.000.000

€12.000.000

€10.000.000

€8.000.000

€6.000.000

€4.000.000

€2.000.000

€0

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 15 - Amount of co-funding (in euros) for survey programmes concerning the presence of plant 
pests during the period of 2015 to 2020 

32 

 
Effectiveness: The continued and consistent allocation of EU funding towards surveys indicates 
that these programmes effectively contribute to the EU’s overarching objectives for plant health. 
While the total number of pests identified increased during the assessment period, this trend does 
not  necessarily  reflect  programme  ineffectiveness.  Rather,  the  enhanced  detection  capability 
funded  by  EU  surveys  has  improved  pest  awareness and  reporting accuracy, leading to a more 
comprehensive understanding of phytosanitary threats. Thus, the effectiveness of the CFF-funded 
surveys should be viewed positively, as they significantly improve surveillance capacity, timely 
identification, and awareness at the EU level. 

Efficiency: In terms of efficiency, the gradual rise in co-funding allocations over the years (from 
approximately €7.59 million in 2015 to nearly €14.69 million in 2020) demonstrates an adaptive 
approach  to  addressing  increasing  demands.  This  adaptability  reflects  an  efficient  use  of 
resources in a highly dynamic context, with funds progressively aligned with escalating detection 
needs. Nonetheless, given the sharp increase in pests identified, ongoing assessments of survey 
methodologies,  geographical  coverage,  and  cost-effectiveness  remain  critical.  Continuous 
optimization  of  administrative  procedures,  harmonisation  of  methodologies  across  MSs,  and 
targeted allocations based on pest risk profiles are vital to maintaining and enhancing efficiency. 

Coherence: Survey programmes under the CFF exhibit strong coherence with broader EU policy 
frameworks  and  objectives.  They  directly  support  the  strategic  aims  of  the  EU  Plant  Health 
Regulation,  complementing  emergency  measures  and  facilitating  informed  decision-making  for 
timely  interventions.  The  programmes  are  also  coherent  with  other  policy  objectives,  such  as 
biodiversity protection, agricultural productivity, and trade facilitation, by ensuring the protection 
of  plant  resources  from  pest  threats.  The  financial  support  structure  under  CFF  integrates 
seamlessly  with  other  EU  phytosanitary  measures,  reinforcing  comprehensive  plant  health 
governance across the EU. 

4.4  Official controls 

The main spending measures carried out under the official controls area consist of the activities 
performed by the EURLs and the implementation of the BTSF programme.  

EURLs activities are financed at 100% by the EU  budget and are aimed to ensure high-quality 
and  uniform  testing  in  the  EU,  and  to  provide  trainings  to  hundreds  of  National  Reference 
Laboratories  (NRL)  in  a  number  of  food  safety  priority  areas.  This  co-funding  is  crucial  as  it 
ensures  high  quality,  robust  and  reliable  diagnostic  capacities  of  the  EU.  It  creates  a  reliable 
laboratory  network  which  is  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  the  EU  control  system  as  a  whole, 
ensuring  that  legislation  is  applied  in  a  consistent  way  as  regards  laboratory  analysis  and 
compliance testing in the context of official controls. 

The  BTSF  initiative  is  also  financed  at  100%  by  the  EU  budget.  This  initiative  provides  for  a 
training programme aimed to prepare officials from the competent authorities in EU MSs and in 
third countries in all areas of food and feed safety, animal health, animal welfare and plant health. 
Notably, in these areas, the EU has  a well-developed set of risk-based rules in place, that MSs 
should  apply  and  implement  in  a  harmonised  manner,  and  official  controls  are  essential  for  a 
successful  implementation.  To  facilitate  the  aforementioned  objectives,  it  is  necessary  that 
be
awareness 
comprehensive 

knowledge 

legislation 

and 

EU 

the 

of 

33 

 
 
TOTAL PEST SURVEYS PER YEAR IN EACH MS 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AT

BE

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

ES

FI

FR

GR

HR

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

SE

SI

SK

Figure 16 - Total pest surveys carried out per year in each Member State during the period of 2016 to 2020 

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

34 

 
 
systematically disseminated throughout all MSs and extended to international partners in third countries. 

The BTSF initiative serves as a systematic mechanism for  disseminating information regarding European 
Union  legislation  throughout  MSs  while  enhancing  the  operational  capacity  of  competent  authorities  in 
legislative  application  and  control  implementation.  Furthermore,  the  BTSF  programme  contributes  to 
national training frameworks by developing qualified trainers who can subsequently facilitate knowledge 
transfer and expand informational reach within their respective jurisdictions. 

This initiative provides substantial benefits to multiple stakeholders. Primarily, it enhances the operational 
capacity of competent authorities. Additionally, the business sector obtains significant advantages through 
the  establishment  of  harmonised  control  mechanisms  across  MSs,  which  effectively  eliminates 
discriminatory  practices  and  prevents  trade  disruptions  that  could  otherwise  result  from  inconsistent 
regulatory approaches. 

The BTSF training programme has systematically addressed numerous topics of critical importance within 
the aforementioned areas, during the evaluation period. The curriculum has encompassed essential subject 
areas  ranging  from  foodborne  outbreak  investigations  to  ASF  outbreak  management.  The  initiative  has 
maintained  consistent  participation  levels,  training  an  average  of  6,540  participants  annually,  thereby 
promoting standardised implementation approaches for EU legislation across MSs. 

4.4.1 EU funding for European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) 

EURLs  play  a  crucial  role  within  the  EU's  veterinary  and  food  safety  framework,  ensuring  consistent 
application  of  analytical  methods,  validating  diagnostic  tests,  and  providing  scientific  expertise  and 
technical support to national reference laboratories across MSs. 

Table 4 - Total payments in euros for EURLs during the period of 2014 to 2019 

Year 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 

Total payments (EUR) 

14,010,090 
14,485,760 
14,578,610 
14,578,610 
15,351,220 
20,730,600 

Total EU 
laboratories 
44 
43 
45 
45 
47 
47 

Average payment per 
laboratory (EUR) 
318,411 
336,878 
323,969 
323,969 
326,622 
441,077 

An analysis of EU Funding for EURLs (2014–2019) reveals that the EU provided consistent and gradually 
increasing  financial  support  to  EURLs  under  the  CFF  Regulation.  Funding  allocations  ranged  from 
approximately  €14.0  million  in  2014,  rising  slightly  each  year,  to  a  peak  of  €20.7  million  in  2019.  This 
progressive increase reflects both an expansion in the number of laboratories supported in the area of feed 
and food safety (from 44 EURLs in 2014 to 47 EURLs by 2019) and an enhanced emphasis on scientific 
preparedness and diagnostic capacities amidst growing disease threats. 

Effectiveness: The number of laboratories receiving funding increased from 43 in 2014 to 47 in 2018 and 
2019. This increase reflects the EU reinforced commitment to strengthening laboratory capacities across all 
relevant  fields  covered  by  the  CFF,  including  food  and  feed  safety,  plant  health,  animal  health,  animal 
welfare, and related public health areas. The EU’s commitment to broadening the network of laboratories 
not only enhances disease monitoring and control, but also significantly contributes to improved analytical 
methodologies,  harmonised  diagnostic standards,  and coordinated  risk  assessments across  the entire food 
and feed safety chain, plant and animal sectors. By effectively investing in a broader spectrum of expertise, 

35 

 
 
 
the  EU  ensures  comprehensive  scientific  support  to  MSs,  promoting  uniformity  in  testing  practices  and 
reinforcing  overall  preparedness  and  responsiveness  to  emerging  and  existing  threats,  ultimately 
safeguarding  the  European  food  system,  agriculture,  and  public  health.  The  steady  increase  in  total 
payments and the consistent number of laboratories receiving funding suggests that EURLs have been able 
to scale their operations effectively to meet increasing demands.  

Efficiency:  Increase  in  total  payments  from  €14.01  million  (2014)  to  €20.73  million  (2019)  suggests  an 
increasing  recognition  of  the  need  for  enhanced  diagnostic  and  technical  support  from  EU  Reference 
Laboratories (EURLs). Moreover, increased payments from 2017 to 2019 (from €14.58 million to €20.73 
million)  coincide  with  an  increase  in  the  average  payment  per  laboratory  (from  €323,969  in  2017  to 
€441,077  in  2019).  This  indicates  that  the  EURLs  needed  more  resources  in  these  years,  requiring 
enhanced  diagnostic  and  monitoring  capabilities.  The  cofinancing  mechanisms,  using  standardised  work 
programmes and templates, particularly for animal health, enhance management efficiency by simplifying 
administrative  procedures  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on  both  the  laboratories  and  the 
Commission. Data shows that the funding has been efficiently allocated, ensuring that the laboratories were 
able to scale their operations and maintain high levels of service without significant disparities in resource 
distribution. 

EU added value: The increase in total payments, particularly between 2017 and 2019 corresponds to an 
expanded and reinforced scope of laboratory activities, covering critical areas such as food and feed safety, 
animal  health  and  welfare,  and  plant  health.  By  establishing  and  supporting  a  coordinated  network  of 
laboratories  at  the  European  level,  the  technical  expertise  has  significantly  enhanced,  harmonisation  and 
standardisation of analytical methodologies have been promoted, and critical scientific support and training 
to  national  reference  laboratories  has  been  provided.  This  unified  approach  ensures  consistent  and  high-
quality controls across the MSs, which contributes to maintaining uniform food and feed safety standards, 
robust animal disease surveillance, and harmonised responses to emerging risks. Without  coordinated EU 
financial intervention, there could be a considerable risk of fragmented approaches among MSs, potentially 
leading to inconsistencies, duplication of effort, and sub-optimal resource allocation. Thus, EU investment 
in EURLs generates clear added value by ensuring coherence, efficiency, and a consistently high level of 
protection across the entire Union.  

Coherence:  The  EURL  funding  is  coherent  with  EU  priorities  in  food  and  feed  safety,  animal  health, 
public  health  and  plant  health.  The  increase  in  EURL  funding  aligns  well  with  other  EU  financial 
interventions,  such  as  vaccine  banks,  emergency  measures,  and  national  veterinary  and  phytosanitary 
programmes. The rise in EURL allocations, particularly noticeable in 2019, is coherent with the escalation 
in  outbreaks  of  some  major  animal  diseases  like  ASF,  reflecting  to  reinforce  diagnostic  capability  and 
technical  support  precisely  when  epidemiological  pressures  intensified.  The  alignment  between  financial 
support  for  EURLs  and  EU  regulatory  frameworks  has  enabled  the  laboratories  to  stay  in  sync  with 
evolving food and feed safety, plant health and animal health regulations. The consistent support from the 
EU budget reflects coherence with other EU funding initiatives in the fields of official control, food safety, 
animal and plant health, and animal welfare. 

4.4.2 Payments regarding BTSF activities during the period 2014 -2019 

The  BTSF  initiative  is  a  key  component  funded  under  the  CFF  Regulation,  providing  training  to  MS 
competent authority personnel and stakeholders involved in official controls in food and feed safety, animal 
health and welfare, and plant health. It should be noted that the analysis excludes 2020 due to exceptional 
disruptions  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which  prevented  the  organisation  of  planned  physical 
training sessions. 

36 

 
Relevance: The data strongly supports the high relevance of the BTSF initiatives throughout the evaluation 
period. Between 2014 and 2019, annual budgets consistently increased, from €16.17 million in 2014 to €18 
million in 2019 (see figure 17), reflecting the ongoing and growing demand for training initiatives and their 
recognised importance. BTSF training sessions (workshops and sustained training missions) and the  high 
participation  rates  highlight  the  clear  and  sustained  relevance  of  these  programmes  in  addressing  the 
evolving  training  needs  of  competent  authorities  across  Europe.  The  large  number  of  e-learning 
enrolments,  notably  peaking  at 11,627  in 2016 and remaining  significant in  subsequent  years  (see figure 
18),  underscores  the  importance  and  growing  relevance  of  flexible  training  modalities,  responding  to 
diverse needs and logistical challenges. 

EU added value: BTSF provides substantial EU added value by ensuring uniformity and harmonisation of 
official controls and regulatory practices across MSs. The considerable scale and reach of training sessions 
(234 in 2014, 256 in 2015, and stabilising around 160-170 sessions annually from 2017 to 2019) (see figure 
19),  combined  with substantial  participant  numbers (exceeding 7,000 annually  in  peak  years)  (see  figure 
20),  significantly  contributed  to  a  more  coherent  application  of  EU  legislation,  standards,  and  best 
practices. Additionally, the centralised coordination of training under BTSF delivers cost-effectiveness and 
standardisation  that  individual  MSs  alone  might  not  achieve,  ensuring  equal  quality  and  consistency  of 
controls across the Union. 

Effectiveness:  The  data  demonstrates  clear  effectiveness  of  BTSF-funded  activities.  The  rise  in  both the 
number of training sessions and participants between 2014 and 2016 corresponds to an increased training 
capacity. Even as the number of physical training sessions declined to around 165–169 (2018–2019), the 
programmes  retained  a  substantial  reach  (around  6,000  participants  annually).  The  sustained  high 
participant numbers indicate effective planning, targeted content, and a relevant curriculum responsive to 
MSs' needs.  

Efficiency:  From  an  efficiency  perspective,  the  funding  provided  to  BTSF  exhibited  thoughtful  resource 
allocation. While annual budgets gradually increased from €16.17 million in 2014 to €18 million in 2019, 
the  programme  adapted  to  varying  training  demands,  shifting  from  predominantly  physical  sessions  to 
increased reliance on e-learning, reflecting cost-efficient use of resources and improved outreach. When the 
total  number  of  physical  training  sessions  declined  after  2016,  the  budgetary  increases  were  modest  and 
accompanied  by  sustained  high  levels  of  participants  and  extensive  online  training  enrolments,  implying 
efficient and effective use of allocated resources. 

37 

 
 
BTSF Annual Budget  (in euros) 

16.170.000

16.670.000

16.500.000

15.500.000

17.500.000

18.000.000

20.000.000

18.000.000

16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 17 - BTSF annual budget (EURO) for the years 2014 until 2019 

BTSF e-Learning enrolments (2014-2019)

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

11627

10078

6438

4908

2402

3819

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 18 - Total e-Learning enrolments for the years of 2014 until 2019 

38 

 
 
 
Total participants 

8.957

7.057

6.549

5.091

5.554

6.029

10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 20 - Total participants in BTSF activities for the years of 2014 until 2019 

Total participants

Total training sessions (Workshops + Sustained Training 
Missions)

234

256

250

162

165

169

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total training sessions   (WS + STMs)

Figure 19 - Total training sessions (amounting total workshops and sustained training missions) carried out for the years of 
2014 until 2019 

Coherence: BTSF demonstrates strong coherence with the broader EU policy framework, aligning closely 
with  objectives  outlined  in  the  EU  legislation  governing  food  chain  including  the  CFF  Regulation.  The 
BTSF  initiative  demonstrates  strong  coherence  with  the  General  Food  Law  by  equipping  competent 
authorities with harmonised training that ensures effective and consistent implementation of EU food and 
feed safety legislation across all MSs. BTSF's training topics consistently addressed key priorities. and the 
integrated  training  approach  directly  complements  the  EU's  wider  food  safety,  public  health,  and 
biosecurity strategies, reflecting the "One Health" principle, which underscores interlinked human, animal, 
and environmental health concerns. 

39 

 
 
4.5  To what extent were the interventions successful and why? 

The  CFF  interventions  were  broadly  successful  across  all  pillars.  In  animal  health,  long-term  veterinary 
programmes  achieved  sustained  progress  (payments  tapered  as  eradication  efforts  matured)  while 
emergency  appropriations  scaled  up  with  outbreaks,  allowing  rapid  containment  (e.g.,  large  step-up  in 
2017–2020)  and  limiting costs.  In  plant  health,  expanded  survey and  emergency  funding  improved  early 
detection and response. And in official controls, increased support to EURLs and sustained BTSF delivery 
strengthened harmonised capacity. This performance reflects risk-based prioritisation, flexible co-financing 
tools, for alignment of spending with epidemiological development and objectives. 

4.6  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

The main direct beneficiaries were MS competent authorities, reimbursed for eligible measures; businesses 
also  benefited  from  harmonised  controls  that  reduce  discriminatory  practices  and  avoid  trade  disruption. 
EURL funding delivered Union-wide added value by standardising methods, strengthening NRL networks 
and supporting coordinated risk assessment, results that would be unattainable through fragmented national 
action.  BTSF  training  (hundreds  of  sessions;  thousands  of  participants)  improved  the  consistency  and 
quality of official controls across the Union, enhancing compliance with EU law. 

4.7 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

The report explicitly assesses relevance and shows continued alignment with evolving needs and with the 
wider  policy  acquis  (GFL,  Animal  Health  Law,  CAP)  and  international  coordination,  while  funding 
patterns  tracked  epidemiological  pressures  (e.g.,  ASF)  and  operational  demands  (EURLs,  BTSF).  The 
sectoral synthesis confirms that the CFF’s design remained fit for purpose through 2014–2020, informing 
the continuity of actions under the subsequent Single Market Programme. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?  

5.1. SECTORIAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CFF REGULATION 

Allocation of EU funds was substantially in line with the forecasted budget. For the concerned years, it was 
sufficient to cover the different needs, thanks to the good results achieved in the four major spending areas; 
the positive trend mainly concerned the animal health field, especially eradication programmes, where the 
successful implementation of long-term measures led to the progressive reduction of the related spending, 
and veterinary emergency measures, whose ad hoc system of early detection and intervention allowed to 
timely extinguish or contain the outbreaks occurred in the period under evaluation, therefore limiting the 
associated costs. 

Reallocation of funds was an essential instrument to boost efficiency in the  control of diseases within the 
framework of national  programmes and reveals that the financial resources have been applied effectively 
and  in  alignment  with the objectives  set  out  by  the  CFF  Regulation.  The financial  support from  the  EU, 
combined with national efforts, has proven to be effective, efficient, and coherent with EU policies. The 
use  of  these  funds  has  led  to  measurable  successes  in  reducing  the  incidence  of  targeted  diseases, 
preventing outbreaks, and enhancing the overall resilience of EU MSs against future health threats. 

EU’s funding for vaccine banks has been well-utilised to address both emerging and existing health threats 
within  the  EU  and  beyond,  ensuring  coordination,  preparedness,  and  swift  action  in  disease  control.  EU 
financial investment in vaccine banks from 2014 to 2020 reflects strategic prioritization and responsiveness 
to epidemiological threats, reinforcing preparedness against major animal diseases. 

40 

 
The  evaluation  acknowledges  that  emergency  measures  play  a  pivotal  role  in  preventing  and  controlling 
outbreaks  of  animal  diseases  and  plant  pests  across  the  EU.  The  regulation  outlines  how  the  EU  can 
intervene  financially  to  support  MSs  and  third  countries  when  emergencies  occur,  which  can  have 
significant  public  health,  food  safety,  agricultural,  and  economic  impacts.  The  selection  of  four  priority 
diseases for EU vaccine banks has enhanced efficiency and the types of vaccines chosen for the banks also 
reflect  the  suitability  of  the  prices  for  the  procurement  of  those  vaccines.  Targeted  allocation  of  EU 
emergency  funds  by  disease  during  2014–2020  was  not  only  well  aligned  with  disease  pressures  and 
epidemiological trends, but also demonstrably effective in reducing, containing, or eradicating outbreaks in 
the EU, especially for diseases where emergency measures could break transmission cycles. 

Available  data  demonstrates  that  the  EU,  through  the  CFF,  has  increasingly  prioritised  and  expanded  its 
financial  response  to  plant  health  emergencies,  fully  aligning  with  the  objectives.  The  marked  surge  in 
funding  for  key  pests  (especially  Xylella  fastidiosa  and  Anoplophora  glabripennis)  reflects  both  an 
evolving  threat  landscape  and  the  Commission’s  ongoing  commitment  to  supporting  MSs  in  effectively 
managing  plant  health  crises.  The  CFF  has  proven  to  be  a  relevant,  effective,  and  EU  value-adding 
instrument  regarding  plant  health  emergencies,  characterised  by  its  capacity  for  targeted,  risk-based 
funding  and  its  adaptability  to  emerging  phytosanitary  challenges.  EU’s  financial  support  for  plant  pest 
survey  programmes  under  the  CFF  has  demonstrated  significant  relevance,  substantial  EU  added  value, 
clear  effectiveness  in  enhancing  surveillance  capabilities,  efficient  adaptation  to  emerging  phytosanitary 
challenges, and strong coherence with broader EU policy objectives. While the number of identified pests 
rose markedly during the evaluated period, this is indicative not of reduced programme effectiveness, but 
rather of improved detection and reporting capabilities fostered by the EU’s investment. The progressive 
scaling up of survey funding, reflecting increasing phytosanitary threats, aligns well with the findings and 
recommendations of the mid-term evaluation, which emphasised the necessity for enhanced preparedness, 
surveillance, and responsive financial interventions. Overall, these survey programmes have reinforced the 
EU’s  capacity  to  promptly  identify,  monitor,  and  respond  to  phytosanitary  risks,  ensuring  robust  and 
resilient plant health management across MSs. 

The  evaluation  of  the  CFF  Regulation  confirms  that  the  EURLs  have  effectively  supported  EU  policy 
objectives in food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health through targeted financial 
investments.  The  progressive  increase  in  funding  to  this  network  has  enhanced  laboratory  capacity, 
technical  expertise,  and  methodological  harmonisation  across  MSs.  This  strengthened  infrastructure 
reinforces a robust and coordinated EU-wide system of official controls, significantly contributing to early 
detection,  risk  management,  and  effective  crisis  response,  thus  demonstrating  high  added  value  and 
coherence  with  broader  EU  policy  frameworks.  The  mid-term  evaluation  findings  are  thus  reinforced, 
confirming that continued EU support to EURLs remains vital for ensuring consistent high-level standards 
across Europe. 

The BTSF initiative funded under the CFF Regulation has effectively delivered significant EU added value, 
demonstrating clear relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence with overarching EU policies and 
MS needs. The maintained and moderately increased budget ensured continued robust participation rates, 
complemented  significantly  by  growing  use  of  e-learning  platforms.  The  adaptability  of  the  BTSF 
programme reflects strategic foresight and efficient resource management. This flexibility allowed BTSF to 
maintain  its  high  value  even  under  logistical  constraints,  as  exemplified  by  the  proactive  e-learning 
approach  prior  to  the  unprecedented  disruption  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2020.  BTSF  remains  an 
essential  instrument  in  facilitating  the  development  of  a  harmonised,  efficient,  high-quality  approach  to 
official controls, thereby enhancing public and animal health, animal welfare, plant health, food and feed 
safety, and Europe's biosecurity framework. 

41 

 
5.2. OVERARCHING CONCLUSION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CFF REGULATION 

The evaluation of the CFF Regulation has confirmed its strong relevance, substantial EU added value, clear 
effectiveness,  efficient  resource  allocation,  and  robust  coherence  with  wider  EU  policies  across  its  three 
key  sectors.  Regarding  animal  health,  and  despite  the  persistent  challenge  posed  by  certain  diseases, 
notably  the  rising  outbreaks  of  ASF,  EU-funded  veterinary  programmes  and  emergency  measures 
significantly mitigated the potential economic and public health impacts. Targeted disease control actions, 
vaccine banks, coordinated regional approaches, and strengthened biosecurity markedly reduced outbreaks 
for  diseases  such  as  TSEs,  LSD,  rabies,  and  Brucellosis,  demonstrating  substantial  progress  in  animal 
disease containment and eradication within the EU territory.  

As  regards  to  plant  health,  EU-funded  survey  programmes  and  emergency  interventions  effectively 
strengthened early detection, surveillance, and rapid response capacities to significant phytosanitary threats. 
Funding  allocations  showed  adaptive  increases  responding  to  evolving  pest  threats  such  as  Xylella 
fastidiosa  and  Anoplophora  glabripennis.  Although  funding  requests  exceeded  available  resources,  the 
progressive and risk-based deployment of funding has considerably enhanced the EU’s preparedness and 
responsiveness  to  plant  health  emergencies.  Finally,  EU  investments  into  Official  Control  measures, 
including  support  to  EURLs  and  comprehensive  training  activities  under  the  BTSF  initiative,  greatly 
harmonised  and  strengthened  the  enforcement  and  consistent  application  of  EU  food  chain  legislation. 
These initiatives clearly improved MSs’ capacity and capabilities, ensuring uniform quality, reliability, and 
effectiveness of official controls throughout the EU, sustaining the Single Market. 

Overall, Regulation (EU) No 652/2014, through the CFF, has substantially improved the EU’s capability to 
respond  proactively  and  effectively  to  animal  and  plant  health  threats  and  food  safety  risks  significantly 
contributing to safeguarding EU public, animal, and food safety. While key areas identified for operational 
improvement  during  the  CFF  evaluation  have  been  effectively  addressed  within  the  new  Single  Market 
Programme  framework,  the  CFF  has  demonstrably  succeeded  in  achieving  its  key  objectives,  providing 
substantial  added  value  at  Union  level.  This  solid  foundation  should  continue  to  inform  future  financial 
frameworks  and  policy  approaches,  maintaining  and  strengthening  EU  leadership  in  food  chain  safety, 
animal and plant health, animal welfare, official controls, and comprehensive biosecurity management. 

The main lessons learned following the overview of the assessment of all activities supported by the CFF 
funding tool, can be summarised as below: 

•  EU cofinancing of the measures supporting animal health and plant health is instrumental for the 
effective  implementation  of  the  relevant  actions  by  the  national  competent  authorities  of  the 
countries involved. 

•  The operation of a central (EU) financial tool for certain horizontal activities meant to benefit all 
EU MSs (EURLs, BTSF, EU vaccine banks) is indispensable for the uniform implementation of 
official controls and all relevant EU legislation, while at the same time it provides a more flexible 
funding mechanism compared to the national ones (for example, in the area of procurement). 
•  The effectiveness of this central financial tool is due to a large extent to its adaptability to the ever-
evolving  epidemiological  situation  in  the  areas  of  animal  health  and  plant  health.  As  a  result, 
prioritisation of specific animal diseases / plant pests should remain a key feature of similar future 
financial tools. 

•  Operation of similar central financing tools can benefit greatly through simplification, where this 
is feasible, with a view to reduce administrative burden and complexity of the relevant procedures. 

42 

 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

ANNEXES 

The evaluation was led by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE). The organisation and timing are described as covering the 
full  implementation  period  2014–2020,  building  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  that  assessed  2014–2016.  The  evaluation  period  commenced  at  the 
conclusion of the 2014–2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (31 December 2020, as established by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/201313) and 
extended  to  the  present  date.  The  initiation  of  evaluation  activities  was  delayed  due  to  a  transitional  period  necessitated  by  the  dissolution  of  the 
responsible  unit.  The  data  analysis  phase  spanned  six  months.  Data  collection  occurred  during  two  distinct  periods:  February  to  March  2022,  and 
subsequently from September 2024 to May 2025. 

The  evaluation  followed  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  applied  a  counterfactual  approach,  assessing  what  would  likely  have 
occurred in the absence of the CFF. Evidence was triangulated through desk research (DG SANTE/Eurostat data, MS annual reports, audit/inspection 
material), an open public consultation, targeted questionnaires, interviews, and case studies, with analysis structured around the five evaluation criteria. 

For  the  reasons  explained  in  section  2.1  (“Description  of  the  intervention  and  its  objectives”)  analysis  in  relation  to  animal  health  and  plant  health 
activities  was  often  limited  to  the  level  of  cost-effectiveness  (quantity  and  quality  of  implementation  of  the  activities)  rather  than  cost-efficiency 
(comparison between financial costs incurred and resulting financial benefits). 

The evidence base combines Commission administrative series (commitments/payments by measure) and the updated findings from the mid-term study. 
The ex-post evaluation document presents factual time series and tables for animal-health emergency payments, plant-health surveys, EURLs and BTSF, 
while  the  mid-term  evaluation  details  the  data-collection  approach.  The  Commission  SWD  –  Synopsis  Report  (SWD(2017)  316  final)14  summarises 
stakeholder consultation inputs. These official documents describe triangulation across multiple sources and reliance on operational/technical indicators. 
The  mid-term  exercise  functioned  as  an  external  study  supporting  the  Commission’s  assessment,  and  it  was  prepared  under  a  study  contract  for  the 

13  

14  

Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, pp. 
884-891 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis report Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council 
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the 
food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 2008/90/EC, 
Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC; 
SWD/2017/0316 final 

43 

 
 
SANTE/2016/D4/SI2.739084 by the IBF Consortium, including the IBF Consumer Policy Centre, VetEffecT and Wageningen University & Research 
Centre (WUR). 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Details  of  the  methodology  and  analytical  models  are  set  out  across  this  document  (section  1.2  ‘Methodology’)  and  the  earlier  body  of  documents, 
namely the mid-term evaluation and accompanying Commission SWDs (Synopsis Report and Accompanying Document). Taken together, they describe 
the logic, data sources, stakeholder consultation, indicator framework (six performance indicators operationalised by 21 technical indicators), and quality-
assurance arrangements. This report applies the same evaluation framework as previously established, without significant modifications, and updates the 
evidence to cover the 2014–2020 period. The supporting evidence and data used for the purposes of the present ex-post report are listed in the following 
table. 

Type of intervention 
Veterinary programmes  Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS), now replaced by Animal Disease Information System (ADIS). 

Evidence / data 

Comments 

Vaccine banks 

Emergency  measures  on 
animal health 

Phytosanitary emergency 
measures 
Programmes  concerning 
presence of plant pests 
EURLs 

BTSF activities 

Annual  comprehensive  lists  of  EU  cofinancing  per  disease  programme,  country  and  type  of  measures. 
EFSA EU One Health Zoonoses Reports. 
EFSA TSEs surveillance reports. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
Comprehensive list of the amounts incurred for each and every procurement procedure (2014-2020) 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
ADNS, ADIS. 
Comprehensive lists of the funds granted per year, disease, country. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
Comprehensive lists of the funds granted per year, pest, country. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
Annual comprehensive lists of EU cofinancing per pest programme, country and type of measures. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
Comprehensive lists of the funds granted per EURL and year. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 
Comprehensive list of the annual budget allocated to BTSF including annual numbers of activities (workshops, 
short technical missions) and numbers of participants. 
Stakeholders’ consultation 

Amounts broken 
down  per  grant 
per 
(payment 
country) 

44 

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

To ensure methodological rigour and transparency, the ex-post report presents the evaluation questions explicitly and in alignment with the five Better 
Regulation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value)  so  that  responses  to  those  questions  constitute  the  principal 
evidence underpinning the assessment of findings:  

Relevance: do CFF objectives still address EU/Member-State needs? 

EU added value: what benefits arise beyond national action alone? 

Effectiveness: to what extent were objectives/results achieved? 

Efficiency: were resources used cost-effectively relative to outputs/outcomes? 

Coherence: is CFF consistent with related EU/Member-State policies and instruments? 

Where  overarching  questions  (e.g.  “To  what  extent  was  the  intervention  successful?”)  necessarily  cut  across  multiple  criteria  and  a  clear  separation 
between  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  is  not  feasible,  the  report  provides  criterion-specific  answers  to  their  respective  evaluation  questions, 
thereby supplying details on the evidence base informing the integrated narrative.  

45 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CFF Evaluation 
Criteria 

Sector 

Activity  

Evidence /Data used 

Data Collection 
Method 

Assessment method 

CFF EVALUATION MATRIX – ANIMAL HEALTH 

Veterinary 
programmes 

-  Animal Disease Notification 

System (ADNS), now replaced 
by Animal Disease Information 
System (ADIS). 

-  Annual comprehensive lists of 
EU co-financing per disease 
programme, country and type of 
measures. 

-  EFSA EU One Health Zoonoses 

Reports. 

-  EFSA TSEs surveillance 

reports. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

Animal 
Health  

Vaccine banks 

-  Comprehensive list of the 

amounts incurred for each and 
every procurement procedure 
(2014-2020) 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

•  Relevance 

•  Effectiveness 

•  Efficiency 

•  EU added 
value 

•  Coherence 

Emergency 
measures on 
animal health 

-  ADNS, ADIS. 
-  Comprehensive lists of the 

funds granted per year, disease, 
country. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

46 

-  ADNS/ADIS online 

database 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  EFSA website  
-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Case studies (Rabies, LSD, CSF, 

ASF) 

-  Cost – efficiency analysis (where 

feasible) 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. number of 
human cases of zoonoses, rate of 
successful implementation of 
veterinary programmes, etc.) 

-  ADNS/ADIS online 

database 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  ADNS/ADIS online 

database 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Case study (LSD) 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Case studies   (Rabies, LSD, CSF, 

ASF) 

-  Cost – efficiency analysis (where 

feasible) 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. number of 

disease  cases / outbreaks) 

 
CFF EVALUATION MATRIX – PLANT HEALTH, OFFICIAL CONTROLS 

CFF Evaluation 
Criteria 

Sector 

Activity  

Evidence /Data used 

•  Relevance 

•  Effectiveness 

•  Efficiency 

•  EU added 
value 

•  Coherence 

Plant 
health  

Plant pest 
programmes  

-  Annual comprehensive lists of 

EU co-financing per pest 
programme, country and type of 
measures. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

Phytosanitary 
emergency 
measures 

-  Comprehensive lists of the 

funds granted per year, pest, 
country. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

-  Comprehensive lists of the 

EU Reference 
laboratories  

funds granted per EURL and 
year. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

Official 
controls 

Better Training 
for safer food 

-  Comprehensive list of the 
annual budget allocated to 
BTSF including annual 
numbers of activities 
(workshops, short technical 
missions) and numbers of 
participants. 

-  Stakeholders’ consultation 

47 

Data Collection 
Method 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

-  Questionnaire 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

-  Desktop review of 
SANTE archives  

Assessment method 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Cost – efficiency analysis 

(where feasible) 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. 
allocation of funds) 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Cost – efficiency analysis 

(where feasible) 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. 
allocation of funds) 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Cost – efficiency analysis 

(where feasible) 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. 
allocation of funds) 

-  Data analysis (statistics etc.) 
-  Cost – efficiency analysis 

(where feasible) 

-  Questionnaire 

-  Use of indicators (e.g. 

distributed among 
competent 
authorities 

allocation of funds, numbers 
of  e-Learning enrolments , 
training sessions , participants 
etc.)) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation15 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 
(comment) 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 
(comment) 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 
(comment) 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 
(comment) 

Type: recurrent  

Direct compliance 
costs: N/A 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

No direct fees/charges 
attributable to citizens 
identified; effects (e.g., 
price pass-through) not 
quantified (in addition to 
the information provided). 

Direct compliance 
costs: N/A 

Biosecurity upgrades, 
sampling/self-monitoring, 
record-keeping vary widely by 
species/sector and are not 
reported in monetary terms. 

Direct 
compliance costs: 
N/A 

Type: recurrent 

Enforcement costs: 
N/A 

Non applicable as costs 
borne by 
authorities/businesses 

Enforcement costs: 
N/A 

Operator time for 
inspections/responses not 
monetised across MS (in 
addition to the information 
provided). 

Enforcement 
costs: N/A 

The CFF records EU 
co-financing of 
measures, not the full 
administrative cost 
incurred by MS; no 
harmonised costing. 

MS enforcement effort 
(staff time, labs) not 
disaggregated or 
monetised in evaluation 
sources. 

Direct compliance 
costs: N/A 

Third Countries: no 
systematic reporting of 
compliance costs linked 
to EU-funded actions. 

Enforcement costs: 
N/A 

Third Countries: not 
systematically captured. 

Type: 
episodic/one-off in 
emergencies; 
otherwise, 
recurrent 

Type: recurrent 
(health protection; 
safer food/feed; 
faster outbreak 
control) 

Indirect costs: N/A  Transitory market effects 

Indirect costs: N/A  Production/trade disruptions, 

(availability/prices) not 
monetised (in addition to 
the information provided). 

Direct benefits: 
N/A 

Reduced disease risk and 
safer food are public-good 
benefits; no monetised 
valuation (in addition to 
the information provided). 

Direct benefits: 
N/A 

standstills, cleaning & 
disinfection beyond co-
financed items not reported in 
euros. 

Benefits from disease-free 
status (market access, avoided 
losses) are real but not 
monetised in a comparable 
way. 

Direct benefits: 
N/A 

Type:  recurrent / 
episodic 

Indirect benefits: 
N/A 

Avoided public-health 
burden and confidence 
effects not monetised (in 
addition to the 
information provided). 

Indirect benefits: 
N/A 

Avoided mass culling/long 
standstills, smoother trade and 
fewer barriers are not valued 
in euros in the evidence. 

Indirect benefits: 
N/A 

Indirect costs: 
N/A 

Opportunity costs 
(reprioritisation) not 
quantified. 

Indirect costs: N/A  Third Countries: not 

quantified (in addition to 
the information 
provided). 

Direct benefits: N/A  Third Countries:  

ancillary benefits from 
regional containment 
measures not quantified 
in monetary terms (in 
addition to the 
information provided). 

Indirect benefits: 
N/A 

Regional externalities 
(buffering at borders) not 
costed. 

Efficiency gains from 
EURLs/BTSF, 
harmonised methods 
and unit-costs not 
converted into € in the 
evaluation. 

Reduced duplication via 
EURLs, shared 
tools/training and 
coherent emergency 
funding not monetised 
(in addition to the 
information provided). 

Mark the type of 
cost/benefit, each on a 
separate line: 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs 
(adjustment costs, administrative 
costs, regulatory charges) 
Enforcement costs: (costs 
associated with activities linked to 
the implementation of an initiative 
such as monitoring, inspections and 
adjudication/litigation) 
Indirect costs (indirect 
compliance costs or other indirect 
costs such as transaction costs and 
movement restrictions) 
Benefits: 

Direct benefits (such as 
improved well being: changes in 
pollution levels, safety, health, 
employment; market efficiency) 
Indirect benefits (such as 
wider economic benefits, 
macroeconomic benefits, social 
impacts, environmental impacts)  

15   Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with  the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the 
table should include the monetisation (€) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of the data (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved 
represented in monetary value – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is 
drawn from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used. 

48 

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
Note: Monetisation is not feasible in this exercise because the available documentation records EU budget commitments and payments by measure rather 
than costs or benefits by stakeholder group, so the necessary disaggregated financial data are absent. Moreover, the principal benefits (fewer outbreaks, 
faster  eradication  and  harmonised  controls)  are  public-good  outcomes  shaped  by  multiple  factors;  without  a  reliable  counterfactual,  robust  valuation 
cannot  be  produced.  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  also  vary  widely  across  MSs  and  sectors  and  are  neither  harmonised  nor  reported  in  a 
comparable,  disaggregated  format.  Accordingly,  this  report  provides  qualitative  evidence  and  budgetary  trends  rather  than  stakeholder-level  monetary 
estimates. 

Linkage between CFF outlays and stakeholder benefits (2014–2020): 

•  Animal health – emergency measures and vaccine banks. Stakeholder benefits: (i) Competent authorities: faster outbreak financing and reimbursable 
eligible  costs,  enabling  timely  response  and  continuity  of  services;  (ii)  Businesses  (farmers,  operators):  reduced  duration  and  spatial  extent  of 
restrictions, lower culling volumes than counterfactual, protection of disease-free status and market access; (iii) Citizens: lower zoonotic exposure 
(e.g., HPAI, rabies), steady food supply; (iv) Neighbouring third countries: co-financed actions that curb cross-border spread. Complementing this, 
vaccine banks provided immediate access to antigen/finished doses, shortening reaction time and reducing response costs during peaks (evidenced by 
the  rapid  decline  of  LSD  outbreaks  in  the  EU  from  2016  to  near-zero  after  2017,  where  vaccine  availability  and  coordinated  campaigns  were 
decisive). 

•  Plant health – emergency measures and survey programmes. Stakeholder benefits: (i) Competent  authorities: capacity to  mount demarcated zones 
and  risk-based  surveys;  (ii)  Businesses  (nurseries,  growers,  operators):  earlier  detection  limits  trade-disrupting  spread  and  preserves  plant-health 
status; (iii) Citizens/environment: protection of ecosystems and amenity trees; (iv) Third countries: reduced cross-border pest pressure through EU 
co-financed containment at the source. 

•  Official controls – EURLs and BTSF. Stakeholder benefits: (i) Competent authorities/NRLs: reduced duplication and fewer inconclusive results; (ii) 
Businesses: predictable, uniform controls across borders, lowering compliance uncertainty; (iii) Citizens: more reliable official controls and earlier 
signal detection. BTSF annual budgets financed hundreds of sessions and thousands of participants, plus significant e-learning uptake, diffusing best 
practices on surveillance, biosecurity, sampling and enforcement. Stakeholder benefits: (i) Competent authorities: scalable skills transfer, consistent 
interpretation of EU rules; (ii) Businesses/citizens: smoother, more predictable enforcement that protects public and animal/plant health. 

•  Overarching  effects.  The  blend  of  emergency  finance,  standing  survey  capacity,  reference  laboratory  functions,  training,  and  vaccine  readiness 
created  system-level  benefits:  faster  containment,  fewer  repeat  tests,  uniform  methodologies,  and  shorter  time-to-action.  While  these  are  not 
monetised by stakeholder in the available documentation, the quantified outlays above map directly to observable outputs and system capabilities 
that reduce the depth and duration of crises, stabilise trade, and maintain a high level of protection across the Union. 

49 

 
Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings achieved already by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison/ where available (e.g. REFIT savings 
predicted in the IA or other sources).  

TABLE 2:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Title16 [Select among:  (i) direct compliance cost savings (for example adjustment cost savings, administrative cost savings, savings from regulatory charges); (ii) enforcement cost 
savings (for example cost savings associated with activities linked to the implementation of an initiative such as monitoring, inspections and adjudication/litigation); (iii)  indirect cost 
savings (if possible - for example indirect compliance cost savings or other indirect cost savings such as transaction cost savings).  

(i) Direct administrative cost savings 
via unit costs & ceilings in veterinary 
eradication programmes 
Type: recurrent 

N/A 

Savings increase mainly to 
administrations. 

N/A 

Indirect benefit through faster 
reimbursements and 
programme predictability; no 
monetisation reported. 

N/A 

(ii) Enforcement cost savings via 
EURLs’ harmonised methods, QA 
schemes and PTs 
Type: recurrent 

(i) Administrative cost savings via 
standardised funding rates 
(50/75/100%) and clearer eligible-cost 
lists 
Type: recurrent 

(i/iii) Cost savings from BTSF 
centralised training and e-learning 
(reduced travel/per diem; reusable 
content) 
Type: recurrent 

N/A 

Benefits materialise as 
more reliable controls; not 
monetised. 

N/A 

N/A 

Not applicable. 

N/A 

Fewer repeat tests and 
consistent requirements 
reduce uncertainty; no EU-
wide €uro estimate available. 

N/A 

Indirect – simpler rules reduce 
delays in implementation; not 
monetised. 

N/A 

N/A 

Public-good benefits 
through better official 
controls; not monetised. 

N/A 

Indirect – more uniform 
controls reduce compliance 
uncertainty; not monetised. 

N/A 

N/A 

Not systematically 
reported. 

N/A 

Not quantified for 
NRLs in 
associated/third 
countries. 

N/A 

Not reported. 

Mid-term evidence and the ex-post 
narrative indicate lower 
administrative burden and faster cost 
clearance for MS and DG SANTE 
once unit costs/ceilings are set (fewer 
invoices, simplified verification, 
predictable rates). Exact staff-time 
savings are not collected in a 
harmonised way across MS. 

EURLs’ guidance/proficiency testing, 
validated methods and training avoid 
duplication across MS laboratories 
and reduce re-analysis; uploaded 
reports do not quantify laboratory-
hour savings or avoided consumables. 

The CFF’s standard rates and stable 
eligibility rules reduce 
negotiation/verification time and 
make annual work programmes easier 
to plan; no cross-MS monetisation in 
sources. 

N/A 

Central EU procurement of courses 
and large-scale e-learning (e-
enrolments rising to 11,627 in 2016, 
10,078 in 2017, 6,438 in 2018, 4,908 
in 2019) lower travel costs and enable 
repeat use of materials. The reports do 
not present €uro savings per 
participant/day. 

Third-country 
trainees benefit 
similarly; no €uro 
data. 

16  

Each simplification/saving should be included on a separate line.  

50 

 
 
 
 
               
 
Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives17. 

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

Description:… 

Extend unit costs/ceilings beyond 
current veterinary uses (e.g., more 
plant-health activities, emergency 
vaccination/logistics); expand standard 
cost options where data support them. 
Type: recurrent 

Digital-by-default grant management 
(common templates, pre-validated cost 
categories, machine-readable claims) 
and wider use of multi-annual 
programming where appropriate. 
Type: recurrent 

BTSF Academy/repository with open 
access for competent authorities and 
structured blended learning to replace 
part of classroom time. 
Type: recurrent 

Facilitate joint/regionally coordinated 
programmes (where epidemiologically 
justified) to reduce duplication across 
MS and along borders. 
Type: recurrent 

N/A 

Public-good impact; no 
€uro figure. 

N/A 

Indirect stability; no € figure.  N/A 

N/A 

Not quantified. 

Expected benefits include reduced 
staff time for grant management and 
approval processes, as well as faster 
payment flows to MSs; however, 
these savings have not been 
quantified in existing sources. 

N/A 

Not applicable. 

N/A 

Fewer implementation delays; 
not monetised. 

N/A 

Would reduce transaction costs 
(fewer iterations; automated checks); 
no EU-wide baseline €uro yet. 

N/A 

Not quantified. 

N/A 

Not applicable. 

N/A 

Indirect through more 
consistent enforcement; not 
monetised. 

N/A 

Expected travel/per-diem savings and 
broader reach; no €uro reported in 
sources. 

N/A 

Not quantified. 

N/A 

Not applicable. 

N/A 

Smoother cross-border trade; 
not monetised. 

N/A 

Potential economies of scale in 
procurement and supervision; not 
monetised. 

N/A 

Benefits to 
neighbouring third 
countries; not 
quantified. 

Note: The ex-post documentation provides qualitative evidence of simplification (e.g., use of unit costs/ceilings, EURL harmonisation, BTSF e-learning, 
standardised funding rates) but does not report stakeholder-level savings in euro terms. Any monetisation would require proxy methods and new 
assumptions (e.g., staff-hours saved × average labour cost; avoided travel days × per diem), which lie beyond the scope of the present evaluation and 
would necessitate a dedicated cost-efficiency exercise with harmonised data collection from MSs. 

17  

This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF MEMBER STATES 

On the specified date (22/02/2022), questionnaires were distributed to MSs, representing 99% of Common Financial Framework (CFF) recipients. The questionnaires 
were designed to solicit feedback on evaluation parameters and addressed all assessment criteria for the CFF: effectiveness, European Union added value, relevance, 
coherence, and efficiency. The deadline for replies was until 31/03/2022, and reminders were sent 10 days before the end of the deadline. 

Responses  were  received  from  seventeen  MSs,  who  submitted  their  responses  through  either  consolidated  reports  or  separate  submissions  from  distinct  authorities 
within the same jurisdiction, with the latter typically differentiating between animal health and plant health competencies. In instances where dual reports were received 
(four MSs), these were subsequently consolidated into unified documents for analytical purposes. 

The responses from seventeen MSs (out of 27 contacted) were systematically categorized into quarterly divisions (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) to facilitate structured analysis. 
Additionally,  a  stakeholder  consultation  process  was  conducted  with  MS  competent  authorities,  who  retained  the  discretion  to  engage  with  relevant  domestic 
stakeholders, including agricultural producers, farmers' associations, and industry representatives, as deemed appropriate within their respective jurisdictions. 

In summary, across core objectives, most MSs were clearly positive about the CFF. In Q1 (needs-fit), the combination of “Strongly agree/Agree” dominates for animal-
health  prevention  and  emergency  measures  (e.g.,  8–10  “Strongly  agree”  and  8–12  “Agree”  across  items  such  as  preventing  transmissible  diseases,  preventing 
outbreaks, supporting disease-free status, and reducing outbreaks), and for plant-health surveys and emergency measures; Q3 likewise shows sizeable “Fully/To a large 
extent” responses for impacts on the internal market and agri-food competitiveness. Perceived implementation conditions were also rated favourably: in Q13, “Very 
efficient” + “Somewhat efficient” is the majority for most lines (e.g., 19/… for preventing transmissible diseases; 18/… for preventing outbreaks), and Q17 shows that 
respondents mainly see the CFF as “Synergy/Complementary” with national animal-health and plant-health policies as well as with official-control arrangements. 

At the same time, there is a strong, shared signal that EU co-financing remains necessary and that specific problems should be addressed. In Q2 (counterfactual), “Less 
measures will be implemented by the MS” is ranked among the most likely consequences if EU funding stopped (8–7 votes in ranks 5–6), and both “Uniformity will be 
lost” and “Uniformity will be compromised (same measures slowed down)” are also placed toward the likely end of the scale—underscoring the EU-level necessity for 
scale and harmonisation. Q11 shows a clear budget sufficiency message: 12 respondents say the overall envelope “should have been higher” versus 9 “appropriate,” 
pointing to pressure on available resources. Finally, Q15 confirms that a majority experienced implementation shortcomings (9 “yes” vs 7 “no”), with reasons clustered 
around  administrative  burden,  procedural  complexity/timeliness,  flexibility,  and  cash-flow  (advance  payments)—all  actionable  areas  for  refinement  or  continued 
support. 

52