Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0546
Offentligt
1792567_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 26.9.2017
SWD(2017) 314 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
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
{COM(2017) 546 final}
{SWD(2017) 315 final}
{SWD(2017) 316 final}
EN
EN
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0002.png
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
The European Commission provides financial support to a number of measures within the
food chain policy, aimed to contribute to a high level of health for humans, animals and
plants. The provisions for the management of this expenditure are laid down in Regulation
(EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014. In
particular, it covers the spending for food chain, animal health and animal welfare, plant
health and plant reproductive material. It entered into force at the end of June 2014 and
established a Common Financial Framework (CFF) for all these areas (hereinafter: the "CFF
Regulation").
Article 42 of the Regulation provides that the Commission establishes and presents to the
European Parliament and to the Council a mid-term evaluation report by 30 June 2017. The
Commission Report shall assess whether, in terms of their results and impacts, the 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, European Union Reference
laboratories and training activities) of the Regulation achieve the objectives set out in Article
2(1), as regards the efficiency of the use of resources and its added value, at Union level. The
Report shall address the scope for simplification, the continued relevance of all objectives,
and the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth. It shall also take into account results on the long-term impact of the predecessor
measures.
The present Staff Working Document (SWD) summarises the outcome of the mid-term
evaluation based on the results of a study conducted by an external contractor and on an
internal assessment performed by the Commission. The mid-term evaluation fully covers the
implementation of the above-referred measures for 2014, 2015 and partially 2016, dependant
on preliminary data available. It also takes into account results on the long-term impact of the
predecessor measures. It provides a qualitative and quantitative overview of the measures
implemented under the CFF Regulation, and assesses them against the five evaluation criteria
set by the Better Regulation
1
policies in the European Commission: relevance, European
added value, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.
The assessment of the sectorial policies under which the financed measures fall are not in the
scope of this evaluation.
2.
2.1.
B
ACKGROUND
The CFF Regulation
In line with the Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020'
2
, the CFF Regulation was
envisaged in order to improve the functioning of the activities implemented within this area,
as well as to focus on EU funding priorities providing real added value. In this view, it aimed
1
2
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/better-regulation-why-and-how_en
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM-2011-500_Part_I_en.pdf
2
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
at modernising and rationalising the pre-existing financial provisions, providing a simplified
financial framework covering the whole food safety area.
Most of the spending measures covered by the CFF Regulation used to receive EU financial
support under the previous legislation, notably:
-
in the veterinary area: eradication, control and surveillance programmes (hereinafter:
"veterinary programmes") implemented by the Member States, which are aimed to
progressively eliminate animal diseases and zoonoses and to implement disease control
measures; and the veterinary emergency measures, which are aimed to timely cope with
emergency situations related to animal health: before the entry into force of the CFF, those
activities were covered by the so-called "veterinary fund", namely Council Decision
2009/470/EC;
in the phytosanitary area: emergency measures to timely cope with emergency situations
related to plant health, while preventing further spread and introduction into the Union
territory; prior to the CFF Regulation, they were co-financed under Directive 2000/29/EC;
in the area of official controls: the European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs)
activities, which are aimed to ensure high-quality, uniform testing in the EU and to
support the Commission activities on risk management and risk assessment in the area of
laboratory analysis; and the Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) programme, which is a
training initiative addressing national authority staff involved in official controls in the
areas of food and feed law, animal health and welfare and plant health rules: before the
CFF they received financial support under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
-
-
Since the entry into force of the CFF Regulation, all the spending activities listed above have
their financial provisions under a single framework, with harmonised procedures,
standardised rates, clarified eligible costs and measures. From the operational point of view,
they are being implemented in full continuity with the predecessor measures.
The CFF Regulation introduced new measures in the phytosanitary area, namely the
possibility to co-finance the implementation of survey programmes concerning the presence
of pests in the Union territory. They consist of surveillance measures allowing preventing the
introduction into the EU or the spread within the EU of harmful organism.
2.2.
Objectives of the CFF Regulation
The general policy objective of the CFF Regulation is to contribute to a high level of health
for humans, animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas, by preventing and
eradicating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high level of protection for consumers and
the environment, while enhancing the competitiveness of the Union food and feed industry
and favouring the creation of jobs.
This general objective is crystallised into four specific objectives, one for each of the four
spending areas covered by the regulation itself, namely: food safety, animal health and
welfare, plant health, official controls.
3
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0004.png
The specific objectives are accompanied by a number of specific indicators, also set out in the
CFF Regulation itself, which provides a preliminary basis to conduct a sectorial evaluation of
the measures implemented under each of the four covered spending areas.
Following to the adoption of the CFF Regulation, those specific indicators were further
translated by the DG SANTE policy units concerned into 21 operational technical indicators
(listed in Annex VI), which were used in the context of the present evaluation.
The CFF general objective, specific objectives, and specific indicators are shown in the table
below:
Table 1. CFF objectives and indicators
General objective
To contribute to a high level of health for humans, animals and plants along the food chain
and in related areas, by preventing and eradicating diseases and pests and by ensuring a high
level of protection for consumers and the environment, while enhancing the competitiveness
of the Union food and feed industry and favouring the creation of jobs
Specific objectives
Food safety:
to contribute to a high
level of safety of food
and food production
systems and of other
products which may
affect the safety of food,
while improving the
sustainability of food
production
Animal health and
welfare:
to contribute to
achieving a higher
animal health status
for the Union and to
support the
improvement of the
welfare of animals
Plant health:
to contribute to the
timely detection of
pests and their
eradication where
those pests have
entered the Union
Official controls
and other
activities:
to contribute to
improving the
effectiveness,
efficiency and
reliability of
official controls
and other activities
carried out with a
view to the
effective
implementation of
and compliance
with the Union
rules (referred to in
Article 1)
4
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0005.png
A reduction in the
number of cases of
diseases in humans in
the Union which are
linked to food safety or
zoonoses
Specific indicators
An increase in the
The coverage of the
number of Member
Union territory by
States or their regions surveys for pests, in
which are free from
particular for pests
animal diseases in
not known to occur
respect of which a
in the Union
financial contribution territory and pests
is granted
considered to be
most dangerous for
An overall reduction
the Union territory
of disease parameters
such as incidence,
The time and
prevalence and
success rate for the
number of outbreaks
eradication of those
pests
A favourable trend
in the results of
controls in
particular areas of
concern carried out
and reported on by
Commission
experts in the
Member States
To achieve the objectives, the EU funding under the CFF Regulation addresses problems
related to three major categories of needs in this area, namely the demands for:
increased protection, by preventing risks which might affect animals, plants or any step of
the food chain;
proper and timely reaction in case of crisis, by extinguishing the emergency factor or
containing its spread;
healthier animals and plants, and safer food, by eliminating diseases and pests which
affect the EU Member States.
The implementation of the CFF activities is articulated in several levels of intervention, and
the specific actions implemented vary depending on the degree of presence of the disease or
pest concerned in the EU territory.
If a disease or a pest is not present in the EU or in a Member State, but there is a risk that it
could enter its territory, a number
prevention
measures are put in place to avoid its
introduction. Particularly, these measures concern the so-called "trans-boundary" diseases or
pests, which are able to spread and transmit regardless of any geographical barrier. They
mainly consist in the funding of monitoring activities to be conducted in a buffer zone in
neighbouring third countries or regions. In addition, for some strategic animal diseases, a
vaccine stock ("vaccine bank") is also established at EU level, to be immediately used in case
of emergency situations.
If a certain disease or pest is more likely to enter or has already entered the EU or a Member
State,
surveillance
activities are put in place to, respectively, timely detect its introduction or
assess its epidemiological evolution since the initial stages. The early detection is of
fundamental importance especially in the case of certain animal diseases and plant which,
5
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0006.png
once entered, may have a potential devastating effect on animal and crop production and on
public health.
In case an outbreak occurs,
early reaction
measures are immediately implemented to prevent
the spread of the disease or the pest, and to extinguish the outbreak in a short time, in order to
minimize the impact on, for instance, plant and animal production and trade. These
emergency interventions include felling of infected trees and phytosanitary treatments, culling
of infected animals or, when possible, emergency vaccination, accompanied by movement
restrictions.
When an animal disease or a plant pest is endemic or detected in the Union territory, a
number of
cure
activities are put in place to progressively eliminate it from the concerned
area and prevent its further spread. Particularly, they consist in medium- or long-term
eradication programmes implemented by the Member States, with a consequent positive
impact for the Union as whole in terms of on public health, animal or plant productions,
internal market and trade.
The comprehensive set of measures described above, implemented by the Member States, is
complemented by the funding of additional activities aimed to enhance the safety of EU food
products in the interest of all European citizens. Particularly, financial support is given for the
EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs), which ensures high-quality and uniform testing in the
EU, and provides trainings to hundreds of National Reference Laboratories (NRL) in a
number of food safety priority areas. Another main element of the EU co-financing for food
safety is the initiative "Better Training for Safer Food", aimed at training every year some
7000 officials of national competent authorities involved in official controls.
3.
M
ETHOD
The basis for the evaluation was set up in the evaluation roadmap
3
. The evaluation was
supported by an Interservice Steering Group, which oversaw the whole evaluation exercise.
The evaluation focuses on the first three years of implementation of the CFF Regulation, fully
assessing 2014 and 2015 and only partially 2016, based on preliminary data available.
As requested by Article 42 of the CFF Regulation, the following domains were addressed:
Animal health:
o
Emergency measures.
o
Programmes for eradication, control and surveillance of animal diseases and
zoonosis (hereinafter: veterinary programmes), where:
Eradication programmes aim to result in biological extinction of an animal
disease or zoonosis. The final target of an eradication programme shall be
to obtain the free or officially free-status of the territory according to Union
legislation, where such possibility exists.
Control programmes aim to obtain or maintain the prevalence of an animal
disease or zoonosis below a sanitary acceptable level.
3
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm.
6
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
Surveillance programmes refer to activities to collect and record data on
specific diseases in defined populations over a period of time, in order to
assess the epidemiological evolution of the diseases and the ability to take
targeted measures for control and eradication.
Plant health:
o
Emergency measures.
o
Survey programmes concerning presence of pests.
Official controls and other activities:
o
European Union Reference laboratories.
o
Training (Better training for Safer Food Initiative).
The above-listed spending measures were firstly assessed using the set of 21 operational
technical indicators previously developed and monitored at level, which were shared with the
contractor at the very initial stages of the external study supporting the evaluation. The
qualitative and quantitative description of those measures was complemented with the
gathering of data, which was undertaken in a stepwise approach using the following sources:
Data sources of the Commission:
financial data (e.g. budget implementation), technical data (e.g. operational
indicators); annual financial and technical reports covering animal and plant health,
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF.
indicators on e.g. trade, animal population;
Literature review: studies, evaluations, conducted either independently or on behalf of the
Commission on CFF-related topics;
Stakeholder consultation, consisting of:
Open public consultation: questionnaire published in English during 12 weeks on the
European Commission ‘Public consultations’ website that received 5 responses
Targeted stakeholder consultation with specific questionnaires for:
o
Competent authorities, stakeholders linked to the industry (including farmers'
organisations, veterinary organisations), EU and national associations,
international organisations and NGOs.
o
EU Reference Laboratories
o
Better Training for Safer Food initiative
In-depth stakeholder interviews: addressing representatives of the European
Commission, and other selected stakeholders (Competent authorities, industry
representatives, NGOs) in a number of Member States. The aim of the interviews was to
identify achievements, good practices, problems and challenges regarding implementation
of the CFF Regulation. The main purpose of the interviews was to fill information gaps
and check information retrieved from other sources for triangulation.
Case studies: covering a significant selection of animal diseases and plant pests; based on
the assessment of the results from the desk study and questionnaires, several stakeholders
were identified to be interviewed for the case studies.
All relevant stakeholders group were reached by the consultation procedure, and most
individual stakeholder contacted cooperated in the exercise.
7
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0008.png
The final report of the external study supporting the evaluation provides an overview of the
measures implemented over the three-year period 2014-2016. There are however a number of
issues to consider when assessing the strengths of the evidence base used for this study,
specifically linked to the limited time available to undertake the evaluation:
The mid-term evaluation exercise started in the second half of 2016, where complete
technical and financial data were only available for the first two years of implementation
of the CFF Regulation.
A number of transitory measures applied during both 2014 and 2015, while the provisions
laid down in the CFF Regulation are fully applicable only from 2016.
The mid-term evaluation has considered the long-term impact of predecessor measures
except in the phytosanitary area, notably for the survey programmes which were firstly
implemented in the framework of the CFF Regulation.
Moreover, no cost-effectiveness analysis has been developed so far in the CFF area. Whilst a
methodological approach to conduct this kind of economic analysis was expected to be
delivered in the context of the external study, the task was not investigated as requested.
Therefore, a significant instrument to perform the evaluation is missing. These shortcomings
have objectively limited the external analysis, which is mostly descriptive and largely based
on the opinions of the stakeholders and on the perceptions of the beneficiaries of the CFF
financial support. It does not include an in-depth investigation of the causal effects behind the
results and impacts achieved by the implementation of the CFF Regulation. The overall
evaluation exercise is nevertheless complemented by the internal assessment conducted at EU
level, which largely relies on the continuous analysis performed at policy, technical and
financial level by the Commission services, including the constant dialogue with all CFF
beneficiaries for both scientific and budgetary aspects. The monitoring of the operational
technical indicators' values was particularly useful in the context of this evaluation: even if
they do not provide cost-effectiveness results, those indicators allow evaluating the
achievements and/or the performance of the major activities implemented thanks to the EU
funding in the areas covered by the CFF.
4.
I
MPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY
The CFF has a maximum total ceiling for expenditure of EUR 1 891 936 000
4
over the seven-
year period 2014–2020. Table 2 below shows the amounts committed during the period under
evaluation, which were 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 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.
4
In current prices
8
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0009.png
Table 2. Commitments for 2014, 2015 and 2016 CFF activities
2014
Veterinary programmes and vaccines
Plant health survey programmes
Animal health and plant health emergency measures
EURLs
BTSF
Total
Forecast budget (in million euro)
2015
164.017.000
7.585.000
16.111.611
15.500.000
14.685.000
217.898.611
258,5
2016
161.553.100
11.375.400
27.376.398
16.000.000
15.365.000
231.669.898
261,0
172.356.231
205.500
12.662.896
15.001.000
14.885.000
215.110.627
253,4
The main direct beneficiaries of the EU financial contribution made under the CFF are the
competent authorities in the Member States, which receive a compensation for the eligible
costs incurred to carry out the eligible measures. Both the eligible measures and the eligible
costs are listed in the CFF Regulation.
The Union financial contribution mostly takes the form of grants (the only exception being
the voluntary payments to international organizations), with a basic reimbursement of no
more than 50% of the eligible costs; under specific conditions, the applicable rate can be
increased to 75% or 100%.
4.1.
Animal health
The CFF Regulation contribution for animal health covers the implementation of veterinary
programmes, which are aimed to implement eradication, control or surveillance activities for
animal diseases and zoonoses, and of veterinary emergency measures, carried out to timely
intervene in the occurrence of outbreaks or epidemics affecting animals. 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 animals slaughtering/culling and the vaccination costs)
are also listed in specific articles of the 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, and on the annual evaluation of the epidemiological
situation and of the most immediate risks identified, 10 out of the 25 diseases listed in Annex
II to the CFF Regulation have been identified as priority diseases for the period 2014-2016
5
.
Payments for veterinary programmes alone make up almost three quarters of the expenditure
under the EU food chain budget. For the 2014 and 2015 programmes, it amounted to,
respectively, EUR 136.22 and EUR 147.90 million.
5
African swine fever; avian influenza in poultry and wild birds; classical swine fever; rabies; bovine brucellosis;
ovine and caprine brucellosis; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; zoonotic Salmonella; bovine
tuberculosis; bluetongue in endemic or high risk areas.
9
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
Over the period considered, the programmes addressing five diseases, namely bovine
tuberculosis, TSE/BSE/scrapie, rabies eradication, salmonella, and ovine & caprine
brucellosis, represented between 84% and 90 % of the payments for veterinary programmes.
The MSs with the highest co-funding of animal health programmes are UK, Spain, Italy,
Ireland and Poland. The amounts strongly depend on the type of disease addressed, on the
specific measures co-financed and on the epidemiological situation in the Member States
concerned.
If the total spending for veterinary programmes is consistent, payments for animal health
emergency measures are volatile, depending on the changes in the epidemiological situation
over the years. For the measures implemented in 2014 and 2015, they amounted to,
respectively, EUR 7.67 and EUR 11.76 million.
During the period considered, about 50% of the budget has gone to emergency payments for
avian influenza, followed by African swine fever (17%) and bluetongue surveillance (14%).
4.2.
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
programme 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,
(payment for 2016 will be finalised by end of 2017).
The implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures are 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 experience has 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
10
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0011.png
to prevent further spread of the pests in the Union territory. In this respect, for example, the
EU financial support has allowed to successfully containing Pinewood nematode in Portugal
since 1999, minimising the risk of further spread to neighbouring Member States, while
preserving the functioning of the internal market. Similarly to the animal health area, although
very 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.
Official controls
The main spending measures carried out under the official controls area consist of the
activities performed by the EU Reference laboratories, the implementation of the BTSF
programme.
EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs) activities are financed at 100% by the EU food chain
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 ensures that the regulatory framework is applied in a consistent way as
regards laboratory analysis and compliance testing used in the context of official control..
Annual payments for EURLs have been increasing over the last years, from EUR 14,01
million for 2014 activities to EUR 14,46 million for 2015 and EUR 16 million for 2016
6
.
The "Better Training for Safer Food" initiative is also financed at 100% by the EU budget,
and consists of a training programme aimed to prepare national staff from both EU Member
States and third countries in all areas covered by the CFF Regulation. The BTSF training
programme has covered, for the three years considered, 52 topics of key importance for the
CFF areas, such as: foodborne outbreak investigations, African swine fever outbreaks
management. This initiative has trained every year some 7000 officials of competent
authorities involved in official controls, promoting a common approach towards the
implementation of EU legislation. Annual expenditure for BTSF activities amounted to EUR
15 million for 2014 trainings and to EUR 14,5 million for 2015 trainings.
5.
A
NSWERS TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The mid-term evaluation assessed the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU
added value of the CFF Regulation, answering to the twelve evaluation questions addressed in
respect to these five evaluation criteria.
6
Provisional data
11
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0012.png
5.1.
Relevance
To measure the relevance, questions were asked about the extent to which the objectives of
the CFF Regulation are still valid and in accordance with food chain needs in Europe, and on
whether new relevant needs have emerged since the adoption of the Regulation itself.
EQ1. To what extent are the CFF objectives still valid and in accordance with food chain
needs in the EU?’
The specific objectives set out in the CFF Regulation are mostly valid, and the EU financial
supports towards their achievement continue providing a response to the specific EU needs in
this field.
In the animal health area, the contribution to a higher animal health status remains the
overarching goal, which is being attained through the implementation of both emergency
measures and veterinary programmes. Outbreaks of diseases having a high potential impact
on human and animal health, as well as from the economic and social points of view, occur
every year. As the number of outbreaks and their impact vary substantially between years, it is
necessary to keep emergency funding at EU level, with financial resources specifically and
immediately available to address crisis events, to ensure a rapid and comprehensive response
in those cases. The CFF has also the facility to take action against new emerging diseases
(such as LSD), therefore adapting to new needs. Veterinary programmes also remain a
funding priority for the achievement of the relevant CFF objectives, especially eradication
activities, in the light of the long-term impact of their implementation. Those programmes
proved to be successful in most cases, and many of them, such as the programme addressing
rabies, can be wound down in the near future due to complete eradication.
As concerns plant health, the objective of the timely detection of pests and their eradication
once they have entered the Union remains the key priority for the Union. However, very few
experience has proved that eradication of plant pests is achievable and only in case effective
measures are implemented at the very earliest stages of the outbreak (Eradication has been
successful only in few cases: two out of four outbreaks of Pinewood nematode in Spain; two
outbreaks of
Anoplophora chinensis
in Denmark and in The Netherlands; two outbreaks of
Anoplophora glabripennis
in Germany and in The Netherlands.
Vice-versa
, Member States
have been able to successfully contain or minimise the risk of further the spread of some pests
into the rest of the Union territory (e.g.
Pomacea
in Spain, Pinewood nematode in Portugal).
The contribution to the timely detection and to the implementation of strict emergency
measures through EU funding is increasingly relevant, particularly when those activities are
combined with surveillance programmes to check the presence of harmful organisms.
The complementary activities carried out by the EURLs and in the context of the BTSF
programme have been contributing to the effective implementation of and compliance with
the Union rules in this area
7
. In fact, such activities - from the tests carried out by the
laboratories to the trainings addressing national officials - have supported a uniform
7
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pages 92-93
12
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0013.png
implementation of controls throughout the EU and to a common understanding across
Member States of their obligations and how to best enforce relevant EU legislation.
8
Their
importance remains strategic within the overall food chain system, where a major objective is
still the improvement of the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of official controls.
The validity of the horizontal food safety objective is to be framed within the overall
implementation of the CFF Regulation, considering that its achievement results from the
combination of all sectorial measures financially supported by the CFF. Animal health, plant
health, and official control activities all contribute to having a high level of safety of food and
of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens. The safety of food requires safe
and healthy animals, plants and a high-standard system of controls. The European agricultural
productions are globally appreciated for their quality as well as for their high-level safety
standards, making the EU agri-food industry the largest manufacturing sector in Europe and a
leading player worldwide. In this context, the EU food safety budget plays an important role
in supporting the specific measures contributing to achieve this objective
9
.
EQ2. Are the needs identified at the time of the adoption of the CFF still relevant or have
new needs emerged which necessitate an adjustment of the Regulation?’
The general food chain needs identified at the start of the CFF are still relevant, as they
mainly consist of either long-term or permanent issues which have been successfully
addressed thanks to the EU financial contribution.
Being situated under the Commission's priority on security and citizenship, the CFF has to be
seen within the context of protection of the EU's productions, its industry, as well as each
single citizen. This need translates into the food safety policy, which is primarily aimed at
protecting human, animal and plant health in the EU. Protection is a solid concept in this
policy area: the principle "prevention is better than cure" has been the leading thread since the
launch of the EU animal health strategy (AHS), ten years ago, then embraced in the plant
health area too. The strengthening of the protective approach is closely related to the
continuous enhancement of the crisis preparedness system, which has been a pillar of the EU
food safety system for a long time. It consists of a number of measures put in place in view of
either avoiding or minimising the sanitary and economic impact of possible future crises,
depending on the severity of the situation. The early detection is of fundamental importance
especially in the case of certain animal diseases and plant pests which, once entered, may
have a potential devastating effect on animal and crop/forests production and on public health.
Thanks to early detection and to immediate application of EU co-funded emergency measures
the EU has experienced no large-scale food safety crises for almost ten years, and all
outbreaks have been successfully contained. Three year after the entry into force of the CFF
Regulation, all the above mentioned needs remain fully relevant, and the EU financial
intervention to ensure they are adequately covered has to be confirmed, in the interest of all
European citizens.
8
9
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 113
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 96
13
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0014.png
Still, thematic priorities are discussed every year and adjusted to the epidemiological situation
which is actually prevailing in the context of the annually approved Commission work
programmes: aspects such as the impact on human health, and the potential to generate
serious economic consequences are taken into consideration. In this respect, the CFF has
shown the flexibility to integrate these needs into the current arrangements, with no need to
make adjustment in the general provisions laid down in the legal basis. Besides the
prioritization of animal diseases and plant pests, new specific needs have emerged during the
very last years, particularly related to the occurrence of new diseases or pests or to their
unexpected development. The evolution of diseases such as Peste des Petits Ruminants, LSD
and Sheep Pox diseases, for example, which were previously addresses by emergency
measures only, has required a more structured support at EU level through the implementation
of veterinary programmes; the specific list of eligible diseases was integrated accordingly in
2016, and those programmes will be implemented in the Member States concerned from
2018. This new needs implied specific adjustments in the area of official controls too, where
additional EURLs were created in 2016 for each of the three animal diseases mentioned
above. The BTSF initiative has also proven flexibility to respond to new needs, notably
during crisis events, when it has contributed to both prevention and crises-preparedness. A
concrete example is the BTSF training organised in response to the African Swine Fever or to
the plant bacterium
Xylella fastidiosa
emergency, as well as the training on foodborne
outbreak investigations, which was organised during the three years considered and focused
on subjects such as outbreak preparedness, outbreak management, and crisis communication,
addressing national teams of public health, veterinary and phytosanitary experts and food
safety authorities.
5.2.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness had questions on the extent to which the general and specific CFF objectives
were achieved and on the impact of the CFF measures implemented.
EQ5.
“To which extent have the specific objectives been attained by the CFF? Which
factors influenced the results achieved?”
The implementation of veterinary measures represents the largest part of the expenditure
under the CFF budget, with the veterinary programmes alone exceeding 75% of the total
spending in the three years under evaluation. This budgetary relevance is also reflected in the
fact that 12 out of the 21 technical indicators monitored in this context relate to this spending
area.
10
The chosen indicators focus on the priority animal diseases and zoonoses; they allow
to monitor the geographical evolution of the EU areas which are free from specific animal
diseases, and to measure technical parameters such as the prevalence, the incidence and the
number of cases. The analysis of these indicators for the period 2014-2016 reveals a positive
epidemiological trend for all priority diseases receiving EU financial support under the
veterinary programmes, with a growing number of Member States or regions becoming free
10
See Annex 4
14
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0015.png
from animal diseases, and an overall reduction in all monitored parameters. A good example
is the increased number of Member States free from bovine brucellosis: at the end of 2016,
two out of the five Member States having a EU co-funded programme during the period
considered, became free of this diseases; in the remaining three Member States, the main
performance indicator, monitoring the evolution of herd prevalence, has decreased by 25%
over the same period, showing a very positive trend towards the complete eradication of the
disease. Among the most remarkable successes, the eradication of several diseases in many
Member States, as in the case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle, a
disease transmissible to humans from the consumption of contaminated beef products. The
long-term EU co-financed measures led to a drop in BSE cases from more than 2000 in 2001
to only 2 cases in 2016.
11
The EU response to the BSE crises restored consumer confidence:
beef consumption had dropped by up to 40% in late 2000, forcing prices steeply downward
and requiring huge expenditure on market support measures at EU level.
12
Another significant
example is represented by the EU programmes addressing Rabies: this disease has been
almost eradicated in the EU in wildlife (complete eradication is expected by 2020) and the
number of cases has fallen from 80 in 2014 to only 18 in 2016
13
, hugely reducing a significant
risk to health and enabling free movement of cats and dogs within the EU. Considering a
period longer than the evaluation timeframe, another success as well as the reduction of cases
of human salmonellosis, dropped by 10% from 2010 to 2015 (latest available data). However,
it should be noted that there are still some areas where the situation has not improved as
expected, such as the cases of bovine
tuberculosis
(in 1 Member State out of the 5 with a EU
co-funded programme) and ovine and caprine
brucellosis
(in 1 Member State and in a few
regions of another Member State out of 6 with EU co-funded programmes).
The implementation of emergency measures in the occurrence of veterinary disease outbreaks
also plays a key role in achieving a higher animal health status in the EU, as well as to protect
the EU economy from a serious and large-scale veterinary crisis. Thanks to early detection
and to immediate application of EU co-funded emergency measures, all recent epidemics
have been successfully contained, and major economic consequences - such as trade
restrictions and the block of exports - have been avoided. A recent example is the fight against
the epidemic of LSD. In 2016, this disease affected seven countries in the South East Europe,
including Greece, Bulgaria and the Balkan region. All these countries resorted to mass
vaccination with the support of a EU LSD vaccine bank, which was set up before the
occurrence of the disease in the Union territory to be immediately used in case of emergency.
This vaccination campaign resulted in the successful containment of the spread of the disease:
no further Member States were affected, and the disease has not reoccurred in the vaccinated
area.
While the EU financial support for the implementation of plant health emergency measures
has been provided for many years, the funding of plant health surveys programmes is still at
an initial phase. Even if the EU Members States have welcomed their introduction through the
11
12
Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States
http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/vetenfinf/bse/14Atkinson.html
13
Data source: Annual technical reports provided by Member States
15
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0016.png
CFF Regulation, their evaluation remains complicated due to the extremely limited timeframe
available and the absence of predecessor measures.
To follow up the presence of pests into the Union territory and the results obtained as effect of
the implementation of phytosanitary emergency measures, the Commission monitors the
number of cases for a selection of priority pests, including some devastating plant bacterium
such as the
Xylella fastidiosa
. The achievement of the eradication objective is more
complicated than in the animal health area, as in most cases eradication of plant pests is not
feasible, due to population dynamics and lifecycle of pests and their vectors present in forests,
parks and plantations. However, in cases eradication is not considered a feasible option, a
containment approach is still an effective approach in order to prevent further spread of the
pest into the rest of the Union territory. This is the case, instead, for the Pinewood Nematode,
detected in 1999 in Portugal, where EU financial support is in place to finally contain, since
2014, its further spread to neighbouring Member States.
14
A similar situation concerns
Xylella
fastidiosa,
which has affected the olives in a restricted part of an Italian region: in this case
too, the implementation of a number of protective measures has led to the successful
containment of this pest in a specific part of Apulia region.
15
The EU financial support to the official controls system addresses two major instruments, and
covers 100% of the eligible costs incurred: the testing activities carried out by the network of
43 EURLs, and the trainings provided in a number of food safety priority areas by both the
EURLs, and in the context of the BTSF initiative. Four operational indicators have been
developed to monitor their contribution to ensuring the effective implementation of and the
compliance with the Union rules in the areas covered by the CFF.
The EURLs have contributed, inter-alia, to the continuous update of diagnostic tools for the
timely identification of pathogens. This is critical to uniform implementation of controls
throughout the EU as it ensures confidence in the reliability of test results and a level
competitive playing field. An average success rate of 85% by the participating laboratories in
the proficiency tests performed by the EURLs network shows the successful application of
testing methods of reference laboratories throughout the EU. Through continuous training,
with an annual workshop organised by each EURL, National Reference Laboratories (NRLs)
involved in the official controls system could upgrade their expertise. The average satisfaction
rate of participants, as regards the training contents, was above 87%.
The BTSF training initiative has covered, for the three years considered, 52 topics of key
importance for the CFF areas. The programme was considered to be satisfactory by the
participants, in both the EU Member States and in third countries, with a satisfaction rate
above 90% for all years considered. Also the success rate of the tests performed by the
participants after the training is very high, at about 88%. The trainings have provided support
to a common understanding across Member States of their obligations and how best to
enforce relevant EU legislation. The BTSF programme was considered the by Member State
competent authorities to be helpful in responding to new needs, notably during crisis events,
14
15
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012D0535-20170310
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02015D0789-20160514
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/legislation/emergency_measures/xylella-
fastidiosa/latest-developments_en
16
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0017.png
when it contributed to both prevention and crises-preparedness.
16
A concrete example is the
BTSF training on foodborne outbreak investigations, which was organised during all three
years considered and focused on subjects such as outbreak preparedness, outbreak
management, and crisis communication, addressing national teams of public health, veterinary
and food safety authorities.
17
A particularly appreciated BTSF training on plant health was
also organised for the plant bacterium
Xylella fastidiosa
together with EU Member States and
Mediterranean non-EU Member States with the aim to transfer knowledge on prevention
activities, early detection, management and control of outbreaks.
The achievement of the food safety objective needs to be presented from an integrated
perspective, being a horizontal goal resulting from the combination of all measures described
above. Animal health, plant health, and official control activities all contribute to having a
high level of safety of food and of food production systems, in the interest of all EU citizens.
The safety of food requires safe and healthy animals, plants and a high-standard system of
controls. There is therefore a direct and binding link with the achievement of a high level of
animal health, plant health and official controls to meet this requirement.
The main factors influencing the overall achievement of the CFF objectives relates to both
financial and technical aspects. Budget limitations in some Members States, especially those
struggling with economic crisis or other constraints, may limit or delay the implementation of
measures necessary to contain the outbreak of a disease. Therefore, the EU financial
contribution supports the EU crisis-management system in the event of an outbreak
.
The
Union coordination also facilitates the process of prioritisation, which would be extremely
difficult to address at individual Member States level. The key importance of the EU
governance in the veterinary area is confirmed by a performance audit conducted by the Court
of Auditors
18
, whose report was published in April 2016. The Report also acknowledged the
good design and proper implementation of animal health programmes co-financed at EU
level, highlighting that both the Commission and the Member States performed particularly
well in this framework.
A third major factor, which also complements the EU coordination in the CFF area, is the
continuous and strict dialogue between the Commission and the Member States, from the
design of the measures to their actual implementation. This cooperation takes place in
institutional fora, like the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed or ad hoc
working groups, but also through the constant informal communication between the
commission' services and the national competent authorities.
A concrete example of the contribution of the three horizontal aspects mentioned above to the
achievement of the CFF objectives is the EU crisis-preparedness and management system in
the event of an outbreak. When a disease is suspected or confirmed, a number of prevention
and control actions are immediately put in place under to address the emergency measures,
including the temporary closing of borders and the regionalisation of the disease. For the
covered diseases (namely Foot-and-Mouth disease (FMD), Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and
16
17
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 76
Better Training for safer Food Annual Reports 2014 and 2015
18
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf
17
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0018.png
LSD), a EU vaccine bank is also available and accessible to all Member States, with an
emergency stock of vaccines to be immediately used in the areas affected or at risk. The
functioning of such intervention system requires a central level of management and
coordination of activities between the Member States, complemented by a strict cooperation
of those member States with the European Commission, but also the commitment of
significant financial resources that would not be possible without the EU budget support.
EQ6. What has been the impact achieved by EU financial support in terms of food safety,
animal health, plant health and official controls?
The CFF Regulation has provided financial support to the measures addressing the
achievement of the specific objectives in this area, namely the overall improvement of the
animal and plant health status in the EU, as well as of food safety and public health. As
illustrated by the evolution of the technical aspects monitored through the operational
indicators, as illustrated in the previous section, positive progress have been made in all areas
covered by the CFF regulation, perfectly in line with the targets discussed by the Commission
with the technical experts from the Member States
19
. The EU territory is today a safer place,
where the prevention and protection system have proven to work properly and where the
safety and quality of food respect the highest international standards. The human cases due to
zoonotic diseases have been progressively reducing over the years, and both the frequency
and the severity of animal, plant, and food crises have decreased. No large scale outbreaks
have occurred for a decade, and all emergencies have been successfully contained and put
under control. In the plant health areas, EU funded programmes on surveys have permitted the
early detection of new pests on the Union territory, allowing to actively contain some pests to
the original outbreak areas (e.g. Pinewood nematode in Portugal) while minimising the risk of
further spread into the Union territory.
EQ7. To what extent has the setting of CFF thematic priorities for Union financial support
contributed to the achievement of the specific objectives?”
Annex III to the CFF Regulation lists a number of thematic priorities for the implementation
of veterinary programmes and of phytosanitary survey programmes. Those overarching
priorities, including inter-alia the impact on human health and the potential to generate serious
economic consequences, are discussed every year in the context of the preparation of the
Commission work programmes. In the light of the major risks identified and on the
epidemiological situation which is actually prevailing, priority animal diseases and plant pests
are identified accordingly. This system has proven to be flexible enough to respond to the
main challenges and the more immediate risks for the EU. The list of animal diseases eligible
for EU financial support, for example, has been integrated in order to address the emergence
of new epidemiological needs (as in the cases of LSD) and the allocation of the available
financial resources could be oriented towards the most significant priorities. The multi-annual
19
See Annex 4
18
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
Commission work programmes covering 2015 and 2016, identified 3 categories; Group 1, for
example, listed the diseases having an impact on both human and animal health. Priorities
have been revised in the context of the recently adopted work programme for the period 2018-
2020, with 4 categories identified, and where Group 1 addresses the major impact on animal
health and trade. This flexible system ensures that the specific objectives laid down in the
CFF Regulation are pursued and that the specific measures implemented to achieve them
comply with the more recent development and needs in this area.
EQ8. To what extent has the implementation of measures co-financed under the CFF
contributed to a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market and to the
competitiveness of the agri-food industry at global level?
According to the last EUROSTAT data, in 2015, the output of the whole agri-food industry in
the EU is estimated at more than EUR 410 billion, representing the largest manufacturing
sector in Europe and a leading player worldwide. Overall, this sector provides some 44
million jobs in the EU, of which 22 million people are employed in farms.
The competitiveness of the European food productions depends on their reputation, with the
EU food safety budget playing a crucial role in contributing to the safety and quality of
European food products. All issues relating to food and to food production are actually a
concern for each single EU citizen: all Europeans expect to eat quality food, produced with
the highest safety standards and under ethical conditions. It is a matter of fact that healthy
food comes from healthy animals and plants. All European consumers therefore expect the
EU to protect them and their interests by guaranteeing adequate interventions and controls all
along the food chain.
In 2015, the EU financial contribution for all the food safety measures has amounted to some
EUR 250 million, notably 0,06 % of the output value of the food industry. The size of the EU
food safety budget is therefore limited compared to the scale of the economic sector
concerned; this relatively low financial support for food safety provided under the CFF
supported the EU legal food and feed framework, which ensures the functioning of the
internal market leading to a positive impact on the competitiveness of the EU’s agri-food
industry at international level.
5.3.
Efficiency
The efficiency section included questions on the relationship between resources employed and
results achieved, taking into account the financial procedures in place, as well as their
contribution to the simplification and rationalisation in the areas covered by the CFF.
EQ9. To what extent has the relationship between resources employed and results achieved
been efficient? Could the same results have been achieved with fewer resources?
19
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0020.png
The improvement of the animal health status is accompanied by a progressive reduction of the
financial resources needed in the area, that in the specific case of veterinary programmes
dropped by 11 million euro over the three-year period under evaluation.
Less predictable is the spending for emergency measures, which varies from one year to the
other as a consequence of factors difficult to anticipate and to control, including climate
change and the globalisation of vectors, as well as the cyclical reoccurrence of some endemic
diseases.
The already-mentioned special report from the Court of Auditors
20
, published in April 2016,
considers the Commission’s strategy for animal diseases to be sound and well-developed,
including a good framework for prioritising budget resources on priority programmes.
According to its findings, the Member States performed well in managing the resources
provided at EU level to co-fund the CFF measures.
The implementation of the survey programmes aims to detect the presence of priority pests in
the EU territory. In this view, an increment of the financial resources is needed and expected
over the next years, supporting the objective to increase the coverage of the Union territory by
those surveys by 2020.
As in the case of veterinary emergency measures, the spending for phytosanitary emergency
measures is variable and less predictable. Over the years 2014-2016, it mostly concerned four
major pests only: the emergency measures addressing Pinewood nematode and Xylella
fastidiosa, together with Anoplophora glabripennis and Pomacea insularum, were responsible
for almost all payments (91%). For these emergencies, the EU has provided financial support
to early detect new outbreaks and to prevent their further spread into the Union territory.
The EURLs' activities and the BTSF initiative are financed at 100% by the EU, and each have
an annual cost of about 15 million euro for the food safety budget. This limited cost has
nevertheless allowed the EURLs to perform high-level testing activities and to train annually
hundreds of NRLs, while in the context of the BTSF, some 6000 officials of national
competent authorities involved in official controls were trained every year. These current
funding arrangements, which fully cover the eligible costs, have proven to be a correct
approach in motivating the Member States to carry out EU tasks.
For all these measures, Table 2 illustrates that the amounts committed during the period under
evaluation were substantially in line with the forecasted budget. The good results achieved in
implementing the CFF budget show that the forecast budget for the concerned years was
appropriate to cover the different needs. Still, it is very unlikely that the same results could
have been achieved with fewer financial resources, for three main aspects already presented in
the previous sections.
Firstly, for the long-term nature of many CFF measures, namely eradication activities, which
represent a very large share of the food safety budget: considering that the final targets are
most of the time achieved after several years of implementation, the specific spending in these
area needs to be confirmed during a long period of time without interruptions, both to ensure
20
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf
20
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0021.png
continuity with past activities and to avoid jeopardising mid-term achievements.
21
Over the
three years considered, a considerable part of the CFF budget was invested in those kind of
activities, for example for veterinary programmes addressing the eradication of Bovine
Tuberculosis, or the surveillance of Avian Influenza.
Secondly, the continuous emergence of new challenges affecting the safety of food, as well as
the health of animal and plants, requires that the specific budget is both flexible and sound
enough to guarantee that the changing needs in this area are addressed properly and timely.
22
Third aspect, the fact that food crises, as well as outbreaks from animal diseases or plant pests
are very difficult to anticipate, and tend to cyclically occur or re-occur affecting the EU
territory. Those emergency situations might require significant financial resources, as proved
by the past crises of FMD and swine fevers
23
.
EQ10. Do the financial procedures in place ensure a swift and resource-saving decision-
making process and thus a quick implementation of the interventions? If there are
shortcomings what are the reasons for this?
Overall, there are no major limitations and shortcomings for an efficient resource-saving
decision-making process and quick implementation, especially in emergency situations. When
outbreaks of animal diseases or plant pests occur, the requested technical measures to
eradicate or to contain them are implemented immediately, concurrently with the financial
procedure, which do not interfere with an efficient decision making progress. Financial
commitments are made quickly and also payments to the Member State are timely.
24
EURLs can adapt quickly to urgent needs
25
, for example to provide technical assistance and
diagnostic tools or vaccines. Representative from the ASF EURL provided urgent technical
assistance to the Member States affected by the first outbreaks of ASF in 2014, in the
framework of the Community Veterinary Emergency Team (CVET) tasks. Besides, the ASF
EURL provided diagnostic tools to the neighbouring countries, to support them in the early
detection of the disease.
In relation to BTSF programmes,
26
quick adjustment of training subjects once awarded is
quite difficult. However, the possibility to introduce additional training has been used, for
example in the case of ASF when this became an urgent threat 2015-2016.
EQ11. To what extent has the entry into force of the CFF, which merges all measures in one
single regulation, contributed to the simplification and rationalisation of the Union co-
financing in the food chain area?
21
22
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 15
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), pages 12-13, 21,
56, 63-68, 82, 148
23
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 59
24
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 117
25
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 127
26
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 127
21
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
The entry into force of the CFF Regulation provided with a modernised financial framework
in the food chain area, introducing a number of adjustments aimed at simplifying and
rationalising the pre-existing legislation. Particularly, the CFF Regulation:
adapted the food safety expenditure to the structure of the EU budget 2014-2020, where
its budget lines are not part of the AGRI budget any longer, but belong to Heading III
"Security and citizenship";
simplified the previous legal framework, over-complex and often out-of-date, by replacing
it with a single piece of legislation covering the whole food and feed area;
aligned the financial tools used in these spending area to the new Financial Regulation,
especially by introducing some adjustments concerning Title VI, on grants;
harmonised the procedures in the phytosanitary and veterinary fields;
standardised the funding rates, providing only three reimbursement rates (50%, 75%,
100%) applicable under specific conditions, instead of the manifold and unclear funding
rated used for predecessor measures;
clearly listed measures and costs eligible for EU co-financing;
introduced a more transparent division of responsibilities between the Commission and
the Member States;
in its Annex III, lays down priorities for veterinary and phytosanitary programmes, to be
adjusted annually or multi-annually.
The implementation of unit costs and ceilings in veterinary programmes is also an example of
simplification and rationalisation of the system. It contributes to a lower administrative
burden for the Commission as well as for the Member States, facilitating the requests for
funding and for reimbursements. It currently covers about 50% of the eligible costs and a
further revision of the system is ongoing, in view of extending it to other CFF spending
measures.
Current reporting requirements were in some cases considered disproportionate by some
Member States, namely for smallest veterinary programmes and emergency measures.
However, the principles of transparency and accountability require that a proper justification
is given for the way public money is spent, even if the size of the budget concerned is limited.
Therefore, some administrative constrains for managing financial files cannot be avoided, in
the interest of all EU citizens.
5.4.
Coherence
Coherence was about the consistency of the EU spending for food and feed measures with the
political priorities in the food safety area.
EQ12. To what extent was the EU spending for food and feed measures consistent with the
political priorities in the food safety area?
The food safety political priorities are scattered across the sectorial legislation in each area
covered by the CFF Regulation, and then confirmed in the CFF itself. In this context, the CFF
Regulation acts as a very technical piece of legislation, where eligible measures and costs for
each spending area are formally listed in specific sections. This bounds the possibility to
22
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
provide financial support to a range of measures which is quite substantial, but nevertheless
clear and limited. Those measures are conceived to explicitly address the political priorities in
the areas covered by the CFF, mostly as a result of the long-term experience of the EU
spending in the food safety area. In addition, the CFF offers the possibility for providing
financial support to additional non-listed measures, in exceptional and duly justified cases. To
date, no request in this sense has come from any Member State, as a confirmation of a
spending system which has proved to be fully consistent with the overall political priorities in
this domain and to properly respond to the overarching food safety needs at both EU and
national level.
The absence of any pressure and not even any proposal towards the co-financing of additional
measures also confirms the functioning of the complementarity of the CFF Regulation with
other related EU programmes, with no extra needs remaining unaddressed by the EU
intervention. An example of synergy between programmes covering complementary areas
regards the primary agriculture, and more specifically the interaction between the provision of
the CFF Regulation and CAP Regulation in the event of an outbreak. While the CFF
addresses eligible direct costs incurred to tackle animal diseases and plant pest, such as the
compensation to owners, the costs of vaccination, and the slaughtering of animals or the
culling of trees, the CAP has provisions to contribute to covering some indirect costs, such as
market losses suffered by farmers.
5.5.
EU added value
In order to assess whether the EU financial support for food and feed measures added specific
value compared to what would have resulted from Member States' intervention only, a
comparative analysis was conducted.
EQ3. To which extent has the EU financial support for food and feed measures added
specific value to what would have resulted from Member State‘s intervention only?
The achievement of a higher animal health status was possible thanks to both the technical
and financial support provided by the EU to the Member States. On the one hand, budgets of
Members States alone, especially of those struggling with economic crisis or other
constraints, have difficulties to secure appropriate financial resources to respond to the
combination of present and potential challenges. On the other hand, the variety of measures to
put in place to tackle animal diseases requires a centralised management system in order to
properly coordinate and organise the implementation of specific actions in the Member States.
The EU crisis-management system in the event of an outbreak is an excellent example of the
added value provided by the EU co-financing in this area. When a disease is suspected or
confirmed, a number of prevention and control actions are immediately put in place under the
emergency measures system, including the temporary closing of borders and the
regionalisation of the disease. A good example of EU governance and coordination is the
recent management at EU level of the African swine fever outbreak, which reached the EU
from Russia in 2014. Since the very early stages of the epidemics - for which no vaccine is
23
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0024.png
available - the Commission have proactively promoted a common strategy amongst affected
Member States, neighbouring third countries and bordering Member States at risk. In
particular, the Commission has given technical and financial support, providing trainings and
ad-hoc supporting material in order to enhance their diagnostic capabilities. This coordinated
action resulted in the containment of the disease and has limited costs for both the EU and the
national budgets. It has also avoided major trade disruption, both within the EU and with non-
EU countries. For all programmes, the EU co-funding adds value to the situation in which
only national funding would apply.
As in the case of animal health, the EU intervention also supports the management of plant
health outbreaks, where the EU provides the financial contribution needed at Member State
level to implement emergency measures.
Moreover, the Union support facilitates the coordination of phytosanitary surveillance
activities, ensuring their uniform implementation in all Member States.
The EU added value provided by the EURLs activities and the BTSF programmes is linked to
the nature of their activities: the network of laboratories ensures that all EU Member States
work within a consistent and uniform regulatory framework and the EU training programme
promotes a common approach towards the implementation of EU legislation. This
contribution towards the harmonisation of rules at Union level and the sharing of knowledge
and expertise in the food safety and related areas is a main example of positive interaction
within the EU, which could not be achieved through isolated efforts at national level and
without the EU financial support.
EQ4. What would be the most likely consequence of stopping or withdrawing the EU co-
financing of the measures covered by the CFF?
The most likely consequence of withdrawing the CFF financial support would be that many
measures would not be implemented any longer, especially in Member States experiencing
budgetary restrictions
27
. Efforts made to ensure food safety, animal and plant health would
therefore be reduced, putting at risk the current status as well as the past achievements in
these areas. In the case of trans-boundary diseases and pests, even the continuation of the CFF
activities in some Member State managing to confirm the financial resources in this area
would be compromised.
Due to the EU dimension of the activities carried out in the framework of the EURLs and of
BTSF and of their objectives, those measures would cease completely should Union funding
be stopped.
28
On top of that, in the event of a food crisis, or of large-scale outbreaks from either animal
diseases or plant pests, the economic impact on the national public budgets and on the
economic sector concerned might be severe. Many studies have already addressed the topic of
the costs of food crises in the EU, especially as concerns some animal diseases whose
27
28
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 88-89
Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No. 652/2014 (IBF International Consulting, 2017), page 92-93,
24
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
outbreaks have largely affected our productions over the last decades. FMD is an illustrative
example of disease which might affect severely the agri-food sector and on the European
economy as a whole. To give an idea of the scale of the economic impact of such disease, we
can refer to a study focused on the outbreak occurred in UK in 2001 (Economic costs of the
FMD outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001 (Thompson, 2002)), according to which the
overall costs on agricultural producers, food industry, consumers and (national) public sector
can be estimated at some £ 3,125 billion. For this crisis, the EU allocated about € 571 million
to implement emergency measures in UK only. The intervention in the event of a new large-
scale FMD outbreak would require the emergency vaccination of the animal population at
risk. A massive vaccination campaign at an average current cost of €2.5 per dose (including
vaccination costs) to be inoculated twice per year would need to be conducted; considering an
official animal population of some 340 million heads (cattle, pigs, sheep and goat), the
potential burden of this intervention (up to 1.7 billion euro) would severely threaten both the
national budgets. In addition, a large number of animals might be slaughtered. Besides these
direct costs, the impact on both trade and the internal market is to be taken into consideration.
The block of exports and of the internal movements of food and live animals would hit the
producers as well as the whole supply chain, endangering the existence of the largest
manufacturing sector in Europe, mostly made of SMEs. Just to give some figures, according
to the 2015 EUROSTAT data, the value of export of food and live animals touched 82 billion
euro. As concerns intra-EU trade, 40 million animals (considering cattle, pigs, sheep and
goats only) were traded within the EU in 2015. This possible scenario might cause the fallout
of the sector or the definitive collapse of its weakest segments, representing a dramatic loss
for the competitiveness of the EU agri-food productions and of the EU economy as a whole.
6.
C
ONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis performed, it can be concluded that the CFF Regulation is functioning
well in supporting the food and feed policy.
Findings indicated that, to a great extent, the CFF objectives are
relevant
in addressing the
needs within the food chain, ensuring a high status of human, animal and plant health, and
therefore supporting the safety of the EU food products. The EU funding in this area supports
the legal food and feed framework in protecting more than 500 million of European
consumers and facilitating the functioning of agri-food supply chains. The competitive
position of this sector is supported by high food safety standards, which contribute to a global
perception of high quality European products. The CFF has been proven to be flexible to
address new needs for co-financing, especially in the emergence or re-emergence of outbreaks
from animal diseases such as Avian influenza, LSD, or emerging risks in plant health like
Xylella phastidiosa.
The majority of the activities covered by the CFF proved to be
effective
in achieving the CFF
objectives, and showed progress in the technical operational indicators used to monitor the
CFF measures implemented. The consultation showed a large appreciation of the EU financial
contribution especially by the CFF direct beneficiaries, who consider both the financial and
technical support provided under the CFF to be adequate and to effectively support the
implementation of the food chain measures.
25
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
In relation to
efficiency
it can be concluded that the procedures in place allow for adequate
prioritising of CFF the financial resources and Member States manage the resources well.
Still, as previously explained, the absence of cost-effectiveness analysis in the CFF area limits
the possibility to demonstrate the extent of the relationship between resources employed and
results achieved. As recommended by the Court of Auditors in its previously mentioned
performance audit - the Commission is working to develop a cost-effectiveness methodology
to be implemented in this area, in order to make the efficiency analysis more robust. As
acknowledged by the Court, this kind of analysis is difficult to determine, due to the current
lack of available models and to the absence of specific economic indicators at international
level. The possibility to develop such methodology, including a set of cost-effectiveness
indicators covering all CFF spending areas, is currently being investigated by the Commission
in view of the ex-post evaluation of the CFF Regulation, to be conducted by June 2022.
EU spending for food and feed measures is considered to be largely
coherent
with the
political priorities in the food safety area, and a positive assessment was also done on its
complementarity with other related EU programmes, especially the CAP Regulation.
The CFF has been shown to clearly contribute to achieving and supporting EU
added value.
Member States benefit from the prioritised and targeted implementation of EU co-funded
activities, especially for emergency, eradication, control and monitoring measures for animal
diseases and plant pest throughout the Union. The financial solidarity that the CFF provides
enables Member States to take required actions according to their interests. Otherwise these
may have been beyond the financial and operational capacity of an individual Member State.
The CFF enables harmonised and robust controls, which satisfy an important need with
respect to an effective food safety policy. The findings from the desk study, relevant
stakeholders in questionnaires, interviews, and case studies, confirm that the measures co-
financed by the CFF strongly contribute to creating EU added value. The added value goes
beyond what individual Member States could achieve by implementing national measures
without EU support.
Overall, all activities receiving EU financial support in this area have proven to serve the CFF
Regulation general and specific objectives, namely the improvement of human, animal and
plant health, as well as the overall Commission’s priorities, including the functioning of an
effective internal market and the support to trade with non-EU countries.
In recent years substantial progress has been made on most of the 21 operational indicators
used to monitor the progress and measure the outcome of the CFF implementation.
The EU framework on food safety, animal and plant health has been recognised as uniform
and consistent in its application and enforcement in all the Member States. This ensures in
turn that both citizens and businesses are confident that this framework is fair and effective in
promoting high safety standards in a key sector of the EU economy. The EU investment in
surveillance, disease and pest control and eradication, provides the infrastructure on which the
safety and trade in the entire food chain is based. The activities funded under the CFF
Regulation contribute to an EU which is safe and secure, prosperous and sustainable, social,
and stronger on the global scene.
26
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0027.png
A
NNEX
1
P
ROCEDURAL INFORMATION
The evaluation was led by Directorate-General for Health and Food safety (DG SANTE). It is
included in the Agenda Planning with the reference 2016/SANTE/142.
The evaluation was supported by an external and independent evaluator, under a service
contract. The service contract has been implemented via a Framework Contract in accordance
to the Financial Rules Applicable to the General Budget of the Union
29
and its Rules of
Application
30
.
The evaluation Roadmap was adopted in July 2016
31
.
An Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) including staff from DG SANTE, from the Secretariat-
General (SG) and from the Directorates-General for Budget (BUDG), for Agriculture and
Rural Development (AGRI), and for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE), was established
in April 2016. The ISG met in 5 occasions: to prepare the Roadmap (April 2016), to have a
kick-off discussion with the external evaluator in October 2015, to discuss the Inception
Report in November 2016, to discuss the interim report in February 2017, to discuss the draft
final report in May 2017. Extensive correspondence between the Steering Committee
members was held in between the meetings to follow-up on the evaluation.
The final report was submitted in June 2017.
The evaluation was not submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.
The evidence base used to conduct the mid-term evaluation of the CFF Regulation included:
Technical and financial reports prepared and submitted by the CFF beneficiaries on
the implementation of the CFF measures.
-
The consultation of some 170 stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in the
implementation of CFF.
-
12 cases studies.
-
A literature review of studies, reports, evaluations, audits and other documents
relevant in the context of the CFF evaluation.
Together, the above evidence base provides the evaluation with a valid and rounded set of
data covering the main aspects of the CFF evaluation including efficiency, effectiveness,
relevance, coherence and added value.
-
29
30
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0966-20160101&from=EN
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R1268-20160101&from=EN
31
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_sante_142_evaluation_cff_en.pdf
27
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
A
NNEX
2
S
TAKEHOLDERS
'
CONSULTATION
Three methods of stakeholder consultation have been employed for the evaluation:
1.
Open public consultation
2.
Targeted stakeholder consultation with specific questionnaires
3.
Targeted stakeholder interviews
Each of these is described in the following sections.
-
Open public consultation
An open public consultation of all interested parties was conducted using the European
Commission ‘Public consultations’ website (replacing the ‘Your Voice in Europe’ website)
and the DG SANTE ‘Consultations and feedback’ web page.
The consultation took place from 16 December 2016 until 17 March 2017. A consultation
questionnaire was prepared in English, discussed and agreed with DG SANTE and published
on the Commission website. After the twelve-week consultation, five replies were submitted
on this.
-
Targeted stakeholder consultation
Targeted questionnaire surveys have been used to acquire specific information from particular
target groups. The stakeholders were identified by the stakeholder mapping exercise.
Targeted questionnaires in English have been developed for the following groups:
1.
Competent authorities (CAs) in Member States, stakeholders linked to the industry
(including farmers organisations, veterinary organisations), EU and national
associations, international organisations and NGOs.
2.
EURL stakeholders
3.
Better Training for Safer Food stakeholders
The questionnaires were limited in the number of questions and restricted in allowing open
responses. As far as possible, the focus was on closed questions, numbering and ranges. Some
open questions were used to provide specific comments that cannot easily be captured by
closed questions. Open questions were also aimed at gaining insight (i.e. explanations,
motivations) on why respondents provided certain answers to specific closed questions. In
some cases, respondents were asked to support their answers by providing evidence (there
was also a possibility to upload documents as evidence).
The questionnaires include an introduction describing the subject and providing information
on matters such as transparency and confidentiality (EU Transparency Initiative, including the
option to register in the Transparency Register), protection of personal data and links to
relevant reference documents.
28
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0029.png
The questionnaire for group 1 had a function that presented selected questions to individual
respondents on the basis of their role, involvement and expertise. Respondents were asked to
identify their individual characteristics and the questions were filtered accordingly. This
enabled the use of a general questionnaire for a range of different respondents.
In order to assess the extent to which the CFF has succeeded in achieving its objectives,
statements were posed that needed to be answered on a 4-point or 5-point judgement scale.
The targeted respondents received a personalised email, including a link to the online
questionnaire and an introduction describing the background and the importance of the
evaluation. A Letter of Recommendation provided by DG SANTE was attached to the email.
Two reminders were sent. The deadline for submission was extended by three weeks beyond
the planned schedule.
Table 4 shows the number of invited respondents, the number of responses and the response
rate.
Overall, a high average response of 78 % was realised for the invited stakeholder
questionnaires, while there were only five responses to the open consultation.
Table 4. Number of respondents approached to complete questionnaires and response
rates
Respondents
Open
consultation
Targeted online questionnaires
CAs and
stakeholders
Number
approached
Number of
responses
Response rate
Public, open to
all
5
Not applicable
81
EURLs
BTSF
45
87
58
72 %
34 + 6*
88 %
69
79 %
* The six EURLs with responsibilities regarding food and feed safety were approached and all
responded
-
Targeted stakeholder interviews
On the basis of the literature review and the on-line survey, topics were selected for
interviews with representatives of the European Commission (DG SANTE and DG AGRI),
and with selected stakeholders (competent authorities, industry representatives, targeted
NGOs) in a number of Member States.
In-depth interviews were carried out by team members using an interview guide to facilitate
uniformity in the way questions are addressed and are answered (avoiding interviewer bias).
The aim of the interviews was to identify achievements, good practices, problems and
29
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0030.png
challenges regarding implementation of the CFF Regulation. The main purpose of the
interviews was to fill information gaps that remained after the other stakeholder consultations.
Interview notes were sent to the interviewee for conformation.
Based on the assessment of the results from the questionnaires, ten stakeholders were
identified for interview. Table 5 provides a list of stakeholders who were interviewed,
including a short motivation and example of questions expressing the key interest for
information from the interviewees. Complete information is available in Appendix D to the
external evaluation study supporting the Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No.
652/2014.
Table 5. List of main stakeholders interviewed
Stakeholders
UK (CVO &
CPHO)
Reasons
Main issues
Key Member States have not Total questionnaire by phone;
answered the questionnaire
Unit costs and ceilings;
Administrative burden
European
Professional
Beekeeping
Association
Greece Competent
Authority
A negative reaction to CFF
in questionnaire
What doesn’t
function well?
Why?
How to solve?
A positive reaction to CFF
in questionnaire
Why does it function well?
What can we learn?
Unit costs and ceilings;
Administrative burden
DG SANTE
CFF Regulation
Choice process with respect to
priorities;
Interaction with Member States
(bargaining, steering);
Strengths and weaknesses;
Cost-effectiveness evaluation;
Unit costs and ceilings;
Administrative burden;
Options for improvement;
30
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0031.png
NPPO, the
Netherlands
Copa Cogeca,
EU added value
Why no added value in your opinion?
How can this be changed?
Important stakeholder
Discussion about the letter sent instead
of the questionnaire;
Functioning of single market;
Plant health issues
Plant health and
small programmes
DG AGRI
Administrative burden
Possible solutions
Economic impacts,
animal and plant health
complementary regulation
Proper functioning of the market;
Competitiveness (static and dynamic
impacts);
Coherence with CAP;
Indicators and input/output ratios
Coherence (more in-depth);
Check if the identified incoherence are
correct;
Co-operation between DG AGRI &
DG SANTE on animal and plant health
31
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0032.png
A
NNEX
3
M
ETHODOLOGY APPLIED
The methodology used for the mid-term evaluation of the CFF Regulation follows the
Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines
32
and accompanying Toolbox
33
.
To answer the evaluation questions, a comprehensive set of data covering all CFF spending
areas was used as evidence base.
For data collection, the following methods were used:
1. Desk research
2. Stakeholder consultation to collect information and opinions from different
stakeholders (data collected by questionnaires and telephone interviews)
3. Case studies to collect evidence and experience on targeted thematic areas
Desk Research was undertaken using reports available at the start and by literature research of
scientific publications supplemented with data sources of the Commission, (e.g. budget
expenditure, operational indicators, trade data, animal data). In addition, the desk research
included annual financial and technical reports covering animal and plant health,
implementation of emergency measures by Member States, EURLs and BTSF, and websites.
Reports/evaluations/studies, working documents, data on operational technical indicators and
financial data were made available to the external contractor. Audit and inspection reports
from the DG SANTE Directorate in charge of Health and Food Audits and Analysis, and from
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were used, as well as documents on food chain
funding, country submissions, the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed
(PAFF), and task force presentations and reports.
Gathering and assessing information from stakeholders was an important part of the research.
The aim is to identify, select and weigh the results obtained from different stakeholders in a
systematic way. For this purpose stakeholder mapping was used.
Twelve case studies were undertaken covering the following co-financed measures:
-
-
for food safety: veterinary programmes for salmonellosis and bovine brucellosis;
for animal health: veterinary programmes for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis,
ovine and caprine brucellosis, rabies, and BSE;
for animal health: emergency measures for highly pathogenic avian influenza;
for plant health: surveys concerning pests not known to occur in the Union territory
and pests considered to be the most dangerous
for citrus tristeza virus and
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus;
-
-
32
33
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm
32
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
-
-
for plant health: emergency measures for
Anoplophora glabripennis;
for official controls: EURL activities for salmonella, mycotoxins, GMOs and
pesticides; Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) initiative.
The case studies covered the evaluation period (2014-2016) and were evaluated against the
operational technical indicators (see Annex IV to the present SWD) and the identified
evaluation criteria (relevance, European added value, effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence). Each case study was carried out in two ways: a general description of co-funding
and analysis in the EU, and an in-depth description and analysis of the implementation of the
case in two Member States. The in-depth analysis included interviews with designated
stakeholders. At least two interviews were planned for each case study.
For food safety and animal health case studies, technical information has been sourced from
the EU plenary task force and the sub-groups that provide tailored technical assistance to
Member States. This includes reviews of reports and meeting minutes, and interviews with
members of the plenary committee or sub-groups.
For plant health and official controls (EURLs and BTSF), the Official Controls Expert Group
was consulted as it has a dialogue between Member State competent authorities and the
Commission.
The criteria applied for selecting the case studies were that they:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cover co-funded activities for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 (when applicable);
are co-funded in multiple Member States;
include Member States with high financial awards;
have a geographical spread over the EU;
contribute information related to the overall evaluation criteria;
may have experienced recognised implementation issues;
may have strong political or public/industry interest.
The analysis of the case studies involved a similar approach as was chosen for the other parts
of the study. It involved the following steps:
-
-
-
Desk study
Stakeholder consultation
Analysis
33
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
34
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0035.png
A
NNEX
4
T
ECHNICAL
O
PERATIONAL
I
NDICATORS AND THEIR
AND
2020
Operational technical
indicator
Baseline
2013
TARGET VALUES FOR
2017
Last available Intermediate
data*
Target 2017
Final Target
2020
Food safety measures
1.1
Reduction in the
number of confirmed
cases of
salmonellosis in
humans in Member
States where a EU
programme is co-
funded
Reduction in the
number of confirmed
cases of brucellosis
in humans in
Member States
where a EU
programme is co-
funded
82921 human
cases
94625 human
cases
(year 2015)
-2 % per
year
-2 % per
year
1.2
425 human
cases
437 human
cases
(year 2015)
-2 % per
year
-2 % per
year
Animal health measures
2.1
Increase in the
number of Member
States which are
free from bovine
tuberculosis in
respect of which a
financial
contribution is
granted
Increase in the
number of Member
States which are free
from bovine
brucellosis in respect
of which a financial
contribution is
HR free
IT, PT, UK
partly free
HR, IE, ES
not free
IT, PT, UK
partly free
IE, ES not free
(year 2016)
HR free
IT, PT, UK
partly free
IE, ES not
free
HR, PT free
IT, ES, UK
partly free
IE not free
2.2
IT, PT,
ES,UK ,HR,
not free
HR, UK free
IT, PT, ES
partially free
(year 2016)
HR, ES, UK
free
IT, PT partly
free
HR, IT, PT
ES, UK free
35
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0036.png
Operational technical
indicator
granted
2.3
Increase in the
number of Member
States which are free
from ovine and
caprine brucellosis in
respect of which a
financial
contribution is
granted
Increase in the
number of Member
States which are free
from rabies in
respect of which a
financial
contribution is
granted
Reduction of disease
parameters in bovine
tuberculosis in
Member States
where a Union co-
financing is granted:
• Reduction of herd
incidence
• Reduction of herd
prevalence
Baseline
2013
Last available Intermediate
data*
Target 2017
Final Target
2020
IT, PT, ES
partially free
HR, EL not
free
HR free
IT, PT, ES
partially free
, EL not free
(year 2016)
HR, ES free
IT, PT, partly
free
EL not free
HR, ES, IT,
free
PT partly free
EL not free
2.4
AT, BG, EE,
FI, IT, LV,
LT free
HR, EL, HU,
PL, RO, SK,
SL not free
AT, BG, EE,
FI, EL, HR,
IT, LV, LT,
SK, SL free
HU, PL, RO,
not free
(year 2016)
AT, BG, HR,
EE, FI, EL,
HU, IT, LV,
LT,SL, SK
free;
PL, RO not
free
Incidence:
HR free;
AT, BG, HR,
EE, FI, EL,
HU, IT, LV,
LT,SL, SK
PL, RO free
2.5
Incidence:
HR: 0.14;
IE 3.88; IT:
0.84; PT:
0.28; ES:
0.91; UK:
9.12
Prevalence:
HR: 0.16; IR:
4.07; IT:
0.97; PT:
0.35; ES:
1.39; UK:
14.49
Incidence:
HR: 0; ES:
0.06; UK:
Incidence:
HR free;
Incidence:
HR, PT free;
IE, IT, ES,
UK not
defined
Prevalence:
HR, PT free;
IE, IT, ES,
UK not
defined
IE 3.27; IT:
IE 2.91; IT
0.61; PT: 0.19; 0.54, PT
ES: 1.59; UK: 0.20; ES
9.12
0.95; UK
6.90
Prevalence:
Prevalence:
HR free; IE:
3.59; IT: 0.86; HR free; IE
PT: 0.28; ES:
3.04; IT 0.65,
2.87; UK:
PT 0.27; ES
14.27
1.55; UK
10.64
(year 2016)
Incidence:
HR, UK: free;
ES: 0.022; IT:
36
2.6
Reduction of disease
parameters in bovine
brucellosis in
Incidence:
HR, ES, UK
Incidence:
HR, IT, PT,
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0037.png
Operational technical
indicator
Member States
where a Union co-
financing is granted:
• Reduction of herd
incidence
• Reduction of herd
prevalence
Baseline
2013
0.13; IT:
1.38; PT:
0.22
Prevalence:
HR: 0; ES:
0.08; UK:
0.14; IT:
1.62; PT:
0.27
Incidence:
HR: N/A; 0;
EL: 0.2; IT:
1.07; PT: 0.8;
ES: 0.1
Prevalence:
HR: N/A;
CY: 0; EL:
1.41; IT: 1.5;
PT: 1.1; ES:
0.17
Last available Intermediate
data*
Target 2017
1.336; PT:
0.175
Prevalence:
HR, UK: free;
ES: 0.025; IT:
1.646; PT:
0.215
(year 2016)
Incidence:
HR: free
EL: 0.25; IT:
0.842; PT:
0.462; ES:
0.063
Prevalence:
EL: 1.72; IT:
1.206; PT:
0.573; ES:
0.085
(year 2016)
free;
IT 0.92, PT
0.18;
Prevalence:
HR, ES, UK
free;
IT 1.16, PT
0.21
Incidence:
HR, ES free;
EL 0.275; IT
0.48; PT
0.41;
Prevalence:
HR, ES free;
EL 0.61; IT
0.61; PT
0.62;
Final Target
2020
ES, UK free
Prevalence:
HR, IT, PT,
ES, UK free
2.7
Reduction of disease
parameters in ovine
and caprine
brucellosis in
Member States
where a Union co-
financing is granted:
• Reduction of herd
incidence
• Reduction of herd
prevalence
Incidence:
HR, ES IT,
free;
EL, ES, PT
not defined
Prevalence:
HR, ES, IT,
free;
EL, ES, PT
not defined
2.8
Reduction in the
number of cases of
rabies in wildlife in
Member States
where a Union co-
financing is granted
Reduction in the
number of classical
BSE cases in
Member States
where a Union co-
financing is granted
587 cases
18 cases
(2016 data)
80 cases
0 cases
2.9
7 cases
5 cases
(2016 data)
< 3 cases
0 cases
37
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0038.png
Operational technical
indicator
Baseline
2013
Last available Intermediate
data*
Target 2017
Final Target
2020
Plant health measures
3.1
Increase in the
number of Member
States covered by
surveys for pests not
known to occur in
the Union territory
(Category A
according to the
work programme for
2017-2018 for the
implementation of
survey programmes
for pests)
Increase in the
number of Member
States covered by
surveys for pests
considered to be
most dangerous for
the Union territory
(Category B
according to the
work programme for
2017-2018 for the
implementation of
survey programmes
for pests)
Reduction in the
number of outbreaks
for pests covered by
specific EU
legislation
N/A
78.57%
(year 2016)
No
intermediate
target
80 %
3.2
N/A
75%
(year 2016)
No
intermediate
target
80 %
3.3
27 cases
(2014
baseline)
18 cases
No
intermediate
target
22 cases
BTSF activities
4.1
Success rate of the
tests performed by
the participants after
the training - from
N/A
85%
>70 %
>70 %
38
kom (2017) 0546 - Ingen titel
1792567_0039.png
Operational technical
indicator
2014: e-learning
tool; from 2016: all
trainings
4.2
Baseline
2013
Last available Intermediate
data*
Target 2017
Final Target
2020
Overall satisfaction
90.17 %
rate of participants
attending the training
90.66%
>80 %
>80 %
EURL activities
5.1
Success rate of
proficiency test,
including the correct
follow-up in cases of
underperformance
Satisfaction rate of
participants
attending the annual
workshop (focus on
contents only)
N/A
85.366%
No
intermediate
target
>70 %
5.2
N/A
87.442%
No
intermediate
target
>80 %
* 2016 data are provisional
39