Brussels, 07/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - The rate of error in the 2012 budget for the first pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is less than 2%, taking into account decisions on account clearance, the directorate general for agriculture at the European Commission states to defend itself from criticism expressed in the Court of Auditor's report on the 2012 budget. The Commission points out that several financial errors in the first pillar (direct payments and market measures) and the majority of unlawful spending in the second pillar (rural development) result from “problems in some member states”.
Taypayers' interests are safeguarded against this kind of financial error, the Commission assures, thanks to a “system of conformity clearance” which allows the Commission to recoup funds from member states twice yearly. “The problems the Court detected in some member states correspond to the Commission's own audit findings. The Commission has or is following them up; the risk to the EU budget is covered”, the Commission underlines.
“Every year the Commission claws back about €1 billion from member states because of non-compliance with EU rules or inadequate control procedures” in the field of agricultural aid, the Commission declares. It adds that, if one takes account of these financial corrections, the level of error for the first pillar (€44.678 billion) falls from 3.8% to less than 2% - the threshold sought by the European Court of Auditors.
According to the Commission, there is an identical situation for the second pillar where the rate of error is 7.9% this year but the potential loss for taxpayers is attenuated thanks to account clearance. The Court found that the “majority of errors” (in pillar 2 payments) could have been detected and corrected by the member states themselves, the Commission points out.
The main reason for the generally high level of errors for rural development is the complex nature of the rural development programmes, the Commission states. It cites the example of agri-environmental systems that are “more difficult/more expensive to monitor and control”.
The Commission concludes that the Court considers that the CAP (and notably the Integrated Administration and Control System, IACS) remains a solid system for the management of agricultural policy if correctly implemented by the member states.
The Court of Auditors notes examples of over-statement. In Spain, Austria and in Portugal, some reference parcels that have been declared and that have given rise to payments as permanent pasture were in reality covered either totally or partially by rocks, forest or dense thicket that should exclude all benefit of EU aid.
The Court reveals that, out of the three control and surveillance systems of the IACS examined, two were considered ineffective (United Kingdom - England and Northern Ireland) and the third was considered partially effective (Luxembourg). (LC/transl.jl)