BETA


2012/2315(DEC) Special report 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States

Progress: Procedure lapsed or withdrawn

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
AGRI
CONT GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan (icon: ) ORTIZ VILELLA Eva (icon: ), KADENBACH Karin (icon: ), STAES Bart (icon: ), CZARNECKI Ryszard (icon: )
Lead committee dossier:

Events

2013/01/07
   EP -
2012/12/10
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2012/11/27
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: to present Special Report No 16/2012 from the Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the New Member States.

CONTENT: the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011.

The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income.

Court of Auditor’s conclusions : the overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features:

the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate : it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs; in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming . The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (EUR 14 million in 2010 for 82 000 ha of land); the total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower than it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope; in spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out ; there is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers but, on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal; SAPS primarily benefits large farms : overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000 representing 24% of the total value of payments; even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future .

Court’s recommendations : in conclusion, the Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required.

A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme.

The Commission’s legislative proposals for the Common agricultural policy after 2013 only partly address the observations made by the Court. When discussing and adopting these proposals, the Parliament and Council may wish to consider whether they should be reviewed along the lines set out in the recommendations of the Court .

Documents

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
activities
  • date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00 docs: type: Non-legislative basic document published title: N7-0134/2012 body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2012-12-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development committee: AGRI body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: ORTIZ VILELLA Eva group: S&D name: KADENBACH Karin group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: CZARNECKI Ryszard responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2013-01-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan
commission
  • body: EC dg: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
events
  • date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: title: N7-0134/2012 summary: PURPOSE: to present Special Report No 16/2012 from the Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the New Member States. CONTENT: the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011. The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income. Court of Auditor’s conclusions : the overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features: the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate : it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs; in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming . The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (EUR 14 million in 2010 for 82 000 ha of land); the total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower than it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope; in spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out ; there is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers but, on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal; SAPS primarily benefits large farms : overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000 representing 24% of the total value of payments; even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future . Court’s recommendations : in conclusion, the Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required. A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme. The Commission’s legislative proposals for the Common agricultural policy after 2013 only partly address the observations made by the Court. When discussing and adopting these proposals, the Parliament and Council may wish to consider whether they should be reviewed along the lines set out in the recommendations of the Court .
  • date: 2012-12-10T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CONT/7/11404
New
  • CONT/7/11404
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.10.14 Support for producers and premiums
  • 8.20.12 Enlargement's agricultural point of view
  • 8.70.03.06 2011 discharge
New
3.10.14
Support for producers and premiums
8.20.12
Enlargement's agricultural point of view
8.70.03.07
Previous discharges
procedure/title
Old
Special report 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States
New
Special report 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de185240fb8127435bdbe92
New
4f1ac83bb819f25efd0000d5
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group
Old
EPP
New
PPE
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1
group
S&D
name
KADENBACH Karin
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group
Old
ECR
New
S&D
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/mepref
Old
4de183f10fb8127435bdbcdc
New
4f1ac963b819f25efd000132
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/name
Old
CZARNECKI Ryszard
New
KADENBACH Karin
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4de188650fb8127435bdc331
New
4f1adb8fb819f207b30000cf
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group
Old
GUE/NGL
New
ECR
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/mepref
Old
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a
New
4f1ac75eb819f25efd000082
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/name
Old
SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
New
CZARNECKI Ryszard
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de185240fb8127435bdbe92
New
4f1ac83bb819f25efd0000d5
committees/1/shadows/0/group
Old
EPP
New
PPE
committees/1/shadows/1
group
S&D
name
KADENBACH Karin
committees/1/shadows/1/group
Old
ECR
New
S&D
committees/1/shadows/1/mepref
Old
4de183f10fb8127435bdbcdc
New
4f1ac963b819f25efd000132
committees/1/shadows/1/name
Old
CZARNECKI Ryszard
New
KADENBACH Karin
committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4de188650fb8127435bdc331
New
4f1adb8fb819f207b30000cf
committees/1/shadows/3/group
Old
GUE/NGL
New
ECR
committees/1/shadows/3/mepref
Old
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a
New
4f1ac75eb819f25efd000082
committees/1/shadows/3/name
Old
SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
New
CZARNECKI Ryszard
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Procedure lapsed or withdrawn
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3
group
ECR
name
CZARNECKI Ryszard
committees/1/shadows/3
group
ECR
name
CZARNECKI Ryszard
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1
group
S&D
name
KADENBACH Karin
committees/1/shadows/1
group
S&D
name
KADENBACH Karin
activities/0/type
Old
Non-legislative basic document
New
Non-legislative basic document published
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3
group
EFD
name
ANDREASEN Marta
committees/1/shadows/3
group
EFD
name
ANDREASEN Marta
procedure/Modified legal basis
$procedure.legalBasisListProposed
procedure/legal_basis
  • $procedure.legalBasisListReal
procedure/?!oeil-proposed_legal_basis!?
$procedure.legalBasisListProposed
procedure/Modified legal basis
$procedure.legalBasisListProposed
procedure/?!oeil-proposed_legal_basis!?
$procedure.legalBasisListProposed
procedure/legal_basis
  • $procedure.legalBasisListReal
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Awaiting committee decision
activities/1/committees/0/date
2013-01-16T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: GABRIEL Mariya
committees/0/date
2013-01-16T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: GABRIEL Mariya
activities/1/committees/1/shadows
  • group: EPP name: ORTIZ VILELLA Eva
  • group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
  • group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta
committees/1/shadows
  • group: EPP name: ORTIZ VILELLA Eva
  • group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
  • group: EFD name: ANDREASEN Marta
activities/0/docs/0/text/0
Old

PURPOSE: to present Special Report No 16/2012 from the Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the New Member States.

CONTENT: the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011.

The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income.

Court of Auditor’s conclusions: the overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features:

  • the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate: it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs;
  • in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming. The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (EUR 14 million in 2010 for 82 000 ha of land);
  • the total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower than it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope;
  • in spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out;
  • there is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers but, on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal;
  • SAPS primarily benefits large farms: overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000 representing 24% of the total value of payments;
  • even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future.

Court’s recommendations: in conclusion, the Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required.

A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme.

The Commission’s legislative proposals for the Common agricultural policy after 2013 only partly address the observations made by the Court. When discussing and adopting these proposals, the Parliament and Council may wish to consider whether they should be reviewed along the lines set out in the recommendations of the Court.

New

PURPOSE: to present Special Report No 16/2012 from the Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the New Member States.

CONTENT: the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011.

The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income.

Court of Auditor’s conclusions: the overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features:

  • the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate: it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs;
  • in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming. The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (EUR 14 million in 2010 for 82 000 ha of land);
  • the total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower than it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope;
  • in spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out;
  • there is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers but, on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal;
  • SAPS primarily benefits large farms: overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000 representing 24% of the total value of payments;
  • even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future.

Court’s recommendations: in conclusion, the Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required.

A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme.

The Commission’s legislative proposals for the Common agricultural policy after 2013 only partly address the observations made by the Court. When discussing and adopting these proposals, the Parliament and Council may wish to consider whether they should be reviewed along the lines set out in the recommendations of the Court.

activities/1/committees/0/date
2013-01-16T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: GABRIEL Mariya
committees/0/date
2013-01-16T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: GABRIEL Mariya
procedure/title
Old
Special Report No 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States
New
Special report 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: to present Special Report No 16/2012 from the Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the New Member States.

    CONTENT: the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011.

    The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income.

    Court of Auditor’s conclusions: the overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features:

    • the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate: it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs;
    • in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming. The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (EUR 14 million in 2010 for 82 000 ha of land);
    • the total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower than it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope;
    • in spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out;
    • there is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers but, on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal;
    • SAPS primarily benefits large farms: overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than EUR 100 000 representing 24% of the total value of payments;
    • even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future.

    Court’s recommendations: in conclusion, the Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required.

    A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme.

    The Commission’s legislative proposals for the Common agricultural policy after 2013 only partly address the observations made by the Court. When discussing and adopting these proposals, the Parliament and Council may wish to consider whether they should be reviewed along the lines set out in the recommendations of the Court.

activities/1/committees/1/date
2013-01-07T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan
committees/1/date
2013-01-07T00:00:00
committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan
activities
  • date: 2012-11-27T00:00:00 docs: type: Non-legislative basic document published title: N7-0134/2012 body: EC type: Non-legislative basic document commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
  • date: 2012-12-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development committee: AGRI body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development committee: AGRI
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
CONT/7/11404
reference
2012/2315(DEC)
title
Special Report No 16/2012 (2011 discharge): Effectiveness of the Single Area Payment Scheme as a transitional system for supporting farmers in the new Member States
stage_reached
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
type
DEC - Discharge procedure
subject