Brussels, 26/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - “In a number of cases there was no evidence for a need for specific support (Article 68, which allows certain direct coupled aid, in other words that with a link to production, to be kept in place) besides qualitative arguments the general nature”, the Court of Auditors of the EU has revealed in a critical report published on Tuesday 26 November on an important element of the common agriculture policy (CAP). Specific support is largely granted in the form of coupled payments, but the Court states that “there is no conclusive evidence that coupled aid is the most appropriate means of achieving the objectives being pursued”.
The Court's audit revealed, for example, that in Greece, no documentation was available to justify any measure precisely. In Spain, the surface aid measure was justified by the “need to fight the recent trend of cereals monoculture”, but the documentation submitted failed to demonstrate any such development in the areas covered by the measure. In France, the falling stock levels which the measure was designed to counteract was justified only for lactating ewes (there was no decrease for dairy sheep and no statistics were submitted for goats), whereas the aid set in place applies to the entire sheep/goat sector. As regards the measure to preserve organic farming (France), the Court noted that no statistics or study were able to establish the risk of a “return to conventional farming” by organic farmers. This means that the need to bring in aid to organic farming was not duly justified.
When the single payment regime (SPR) was introduced in 2003, the member states were able to keep up to 10% of their national ceilings “for particular types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment or for improving the quality of the marketing of agricultural products”. This specific support was then extended by Article 68 of Regulation 73/2009. 24 member states decided to use Article 68 by means of 113 extremely varied measures, with a total budget for the 2010-2013 period of €6.4 billion.
By means of derogations, Article 68 allows the member states to keep direct coupled payments “in certain well-defined cases”. However, the Court found that the “Commission had only limited limited control over the justification for these cases and the member states had a great deal of discretion to introduce direct coupled payments”. Then, the implementation of the provisions of Article 68 “have not always been entirely in line with the general principles of uncoupling and simplification which currently govern the common agriculture policy”, the Court continues. It also notes that the need and relevance (in terms of need, efficiency and form retained and level of aid granted) of the measures set in place under Article 68 “have not been sufficiently demonstrated at the level of the member states”. Lastly, the Court revealed the existence of shortcomings in the administrative and control system set in place to ensure that the existing measures were being executed correctly.
The audit focused on the design of the specific support provided for under Article 68 and the details of its implementation in the years 2010 and 2011. It was carried out at the Commission and in Greece, Spain (Aragon, Galicia and Castille-La Manche), France and Italy (Emilia-Romagne and Lazio), as these member states represent 68% of the budgetary allocation for the period 2010-2013 and 73% of the expenditure earmarked for the first two years. (LC/transl.fl)