iPi 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.04.1996 
COM(96) 174 final 
96/0122 (CNS) 
COMMISSION REPORT 
on the application in the Member States of the Integrated Administrative 
and Control System for certain Community aid schemes 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administrative 
and control system for certain Community aid schemes ("integrated system") 
(presented by the Commission) 

COMMISSION REPORT 
on 
the application in the Member States of the Integrated Administration and 
Control System for certain Community aid schemes 
d 

1 Introduction 3 
2 Scale of expenditure verified 4 
3 Basic components of Integrated System 5 
3.1 System for identifying land 5 
3.2 System for identifying livestock 6 
3.3 Applications for aid in respect of land 7 
3.4 Applications for aid in respect of livestock 8 
3.5 Administrative structures 9 
3.6 Computerized crosschecks 9 
3.7 Summary of statistics of checks 10 
4 Part-financing 11 
5 Scope of Integrated System and future outlook 12 
6 Situation at 31 December 1995 13 
7 Remarks in connection with clearance of accounts 15 
8 Conclusions 15 
Annex: 
Summary of situation in Member States 

INTRODUCTION 
The reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) adopted in June 1992 
represents a watershed in agricultural support measures, involving a shift from 
price support to compensatory aid paid directly to producers. 
This aid is related to the land cultivated and the number of livestock reared by the 
farmer. It entails measures to control production, such as set-aside and support for 
extensification of stockfarming. 
The methods for administering and monitoring the aid must be adapted 
accordingly, in line with two main concerns: 
- facilitating the task of farmers who wish to take advantage of the aid 
offered, 
- administering the huge number of applications with the greatest speed and 
security. 
Experience gained in the past in the administration and monitoring of this type of 
aid showed that unless a totally new approach was adopted, the difficulties of 
application would have been considerable for both farmers and the departments 
in charge of administration and controls. It was also unthinkable to administer and 
verify each scheme separately. Accordingly it was decided that a single processing 
system would cover all aid applied for by each agricultural holding. 
In view of the large number of applicants, special means were adopted to optimize 
controls. In order to deal with this large number of applications and make 
payments to the farmers in time, exhaustive on-site checks could not be 
contemplated and provision was accordingly made for a maximum number of 
checks to be carried out at the administrative verification stage. 
Sight needed not to be lost of the practical consequences for the farmers 
themselves of the adoption of new aid schemes. To that end, the administrative 
procedures were simplified as far as possible while a uniform framework was 
introduced for the application of several types of aid. 
On that basis, the Integrated Administration and Control System for compensatory 
aid provided for under the reform of the CAP ("Integrated System") was adopted, 
utilizing in particular modern techniques like data-processing and remote sensing, 
and perhaps one day soon the electronic identification of animals. The Integrated 
System provides for a single area aid application, to be submitted by the farmer 
each year. This is the key component for the administration and monitoring of 
area-related aid schemes. The Integrated System also entails the setting-up of 
computerized databases enabling crosschecks to be conducted on holdings, as well 
as parcels and livestock. To conduct this type of check, provision was made for 
a system for identifying and registering agricultural parcels and livestock. 
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, which introduces the Integrated System, provides 
for Community part-financing of expenditure incurred on its establishment. The 
Integrated System became applicable from 1 February 1993 as regards aid 
applications and integrated controls thereof, and as regards the system for 
identifying and registering cattle. The Member States had until 1 January 1996 to 
introduce the other components of the system. For the new Member States which 
acceded to the Community in 1995, the transitional period expires on 1 January 
1997. 
Coming at the close of the transitional period for the former Member States, this 
report has three objectives: 
to review the introduction of the Integrated System, 
to draw initial conclusions regarding its introduction, 
to propose solutions to the problems encountered and to outline the 
possible uses of this instrument for other measures, existing or planned, 
under the common agricultural policy. 
SCALE OF EXPENDITURE VERIFIED 
In the wake of the reform of the CAP, the breakdown of EAGGF Guarantee 
Section expenditure has been substantially modified. Payments under the schemes 
subject to the Integrated System in respect of aid applications submitted by 
farmers in 1993 and subsequent years are covered from the 1994 budget year. 
Such payments have increased sharply. 
Total EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure amounted to ECU 33 410 million 
in 1994, ECU 34 500 million in 1995 and ECU 41 258 million in the 1996 
budget. Expenditure on direct aid under the Integrated System schemes amounts 
to ECU 14 150 million in 1994, ECU 17 760 million in 1995 and ECU 19 170 
million in the 1996 budget. 
This expenditure therefore represents 42% (1), 51% (1) and 46% (1) of total 
EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 budget years. 
(1) expenditure executed for 1994 and 1995, budget estimates for 1996. 
BASIC COMPONENTS OF INTEGRATED SYSTEM 
3.1 System for identifying land 
The requirement for a system to identify areas can be explained by the 
need to define a system of communication between the farmer and the 
administration to allow areas declared to be located so they can be 
monitored over time, so computerized crosschecks can be organized and 
on-the-spot checks conducted. 
Member States do not apply the same system of identification. The 
systems for identifying agricultural land applied by the Member States may 
be distinguished by reference to two main criteria: 
• Some systems are based on references (maps and numbering) 
existing beforehand, like the land register in Spain, Italy, France, 
Germany, Luxembourg and Austria, and the Ordnance Survey maps 
which cover most of the United Kingdom. 
Other systems have been created from scratch to meet requirements 
laid down by regulation. This is the case in Ireland, Greece, 
Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Scotland (fodder 
areas) and probably Finland (1) and Sweden(l). 
• Some systems identify agricultural parcels, as in Germany (11 
Lander), Belgium, Italy, Spain, France (simplified system), Ireland 
(arable land), Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. Others 
identify blocks (or îlots) comprising land declared, as in Germany 
(5 Lander), Austria, Denmark, France (general system), Finland, 
Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Ireland (fodder areas), Scotland (fodder 
areas) and the Netherlands. In the latter case, two major variants 
exist alongside each other, whereby the block is created by the 
farmer (AT, DE, FR, IE and FI) or defined by the authorities on 
the basis of maps or aerial photographs (DK, EL, NL, PT and SE). 
As a result there are various situations differing in terms of: 
• Cost and time required for introduction: where it is feasible, the 
land-registry approach whether or not involving blocks is the 
quickest to introduce and, on the face of it, least costly; 
• Ease of use for declarants: the approach by blocks makes 
declaration easier in so far as the references are fewer in number 
and more stable over time; 
(1) which only adhered to in 1995. 
The need to validate the units created by the farmer by comparison 
with official sources, on-the-spot inspections and recent aerial 
photographs; 
Effectiveness of computerized crosschecks based on the size of the 
reference units, their stability, the updating intervals, the proportion 
of ineligible land, and the number of farmers using the same 
identifier. 
3.2 System for identifying livestock 
The fundamental purpose in verifying aid applications is to ascertain the 
actual existence of the declared livestock as identified by an individual 
number, and to check compliance with the various eligibility criteria. To 
achieve those objectives, a single livestock identification and registration 
system was needed. This was defined and introduced by Directive 
92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992, which mainly covers the veterinary 
health surveillance of livestock. Care has therefore been taken to avoid 
superimposing two systems. 
That Directive stipulates that all animals must be identified by an 
individual number shortly after birth or introduction into the Community. 
Marking must involve the use of eartags which cannot be tampered with 
without sign and are approved by the Member State. The producer is 
required to register all the livestock he keeps under individual 
identification numbers and enter details of animals arriving at or leaving 
the farm with the corresponding dates. It does not make explicit provision 
for registering livestock in a central database but, in view of the obligation 
to administer the issuing of numbers and to monitor the health of large 
herds, all the Member States have developed or are developing a database. 
The Commission feels that the need for such a database should be taken 
into account when that Directive is reviewed as planned in the near future. 
The livestock must be marked using large-format plastic rings which are 
easy to read; metal rings, which are not very legible, have gradually been 
phased out, except in the United Kingdom, where the possibility of using 
either plastic or metal has been maintained. The marking is affixed by an 
approved identifier in Belgium, Greece, France, Ireland and Portugal. 
Some Member States do not yet have a database for identifying livestock 
but are currently developing a central computerized system; pending 
completion of this work, conduct administrative checks using hard-copy 
documents (AT, EL, ES, IE, IT and SE). 
Depending on the type of information recorded and updated in the 
database, three levels of efficiency may be distinguished: 
- Databases containing the numbers issued (as in DE (currently being 
developed) and UK), 
- Databases identical to the above but also containing additional 
information on the animals identified, such as sex, breed and date 
of birth (DK, LU and PT), 
- Databases in which all movements of livestock are recorded and 
which thus enable compulsory retention periods, in particular, to be 
verified (BE, FR, NL and FI (now being prepared)). 
This third type of computerized database provides the ideal solution but is 
also the most costly; Luxembourg and Ireland are developing a project 
along these lines. The Commission advises the Member States as a 
minimum to adopt the second approach, which affords adequate control 
capacity. Naturally, the details used for checks must be selected on the 
basis of the characteristics of production in the Member States. In 
Denmark, for example, animals generally remain on the holding of birth 
until slaughter, whereas in Ireland the animal often passes through several 
holdings or dealers before slaughter. Methods of verification must 
obviously take account of such special local factors. 
3.3 Area aid applications 
The Commission has not imposed a single type of form for the whole 
Community. Area aid applications comprise four main sections, namely 
administrative data (name, bank account, etc.), references to parcels 
(number and official area), areas cultivated (per parcel, group) and any 
annexes (diagrams, copies of maps and plans, etc.). 
The form and complexity of forms and explanatory notes are the result of 
choices made by the Member States and depend largely on the system of 
parcel identification selected and any combination with Community aid 
under other national aid schemes (e.g. environmental aid). The form may 
even vary within a Member State by region (DE and UK) or scheme (FR). 
In 1995, in order to make declarations lighter work and to reduce the 
percentage of mistakes, most Member States sent farmers preprinted forms 
containing administrative data and parcel references. In Belgium and Italy, 
most declarations were received in digital form via professional 
associations. 
Each year many Member States present reasoned requests for 
postponements of the time limit for submitting declarations, set by 
regulation at 31 March (8 requests in 1994, 12 in 1995 and 13 in 1996). 
The arguments put forward generally concern local cropping calendars, the 
anticipated rate of alterations to cropping schedules, work plans and 
procedures for the year concerned. The Commission considers that in the 
future the Member States should be given responsibility for taking this 
decision on the basis of the effectiveness of control procedures introduced 
(see point 7 and Annex II to proposal for Regulation), subject, naturally, 
to verification under clearance of accounts procedures. 
3.4 Applications for aid in respect of livestock 
Unlike practice in the case of area aid, it was not possible to introduce a 
single application covering all aid granted in respect of livestock (special 
premium for male bovine animals, suckler-cow premium, sheep and goat 
premiums, compensatory allowances for natural handicaps). As structures 
and cycles vary from one type of production to another, it seemed 
necessary and logical to take account of this fact by allowing for some 
flexibility and variation in the dates set for the submission of applications 
and in the retention periods during which the animals are to be kept. 
Nevertheless, the Commission encourages the Member States to group 
them as much as possible. Application forms for the various types of aid 
are generally set out in a similar way to make them easier to compile and 
process. 
Whatever the premium concerned, aid applications comprise all requisite 
information to be provided compulsorily, namely the administrative 
identification of the farmer, data on the holding (maximum individual 
entitlement, milk quota, reference of application for area aid), particulars 
relating to the animals covered by the aid application (number, species, 
place of retention and identification numbers of cattle), an undertaking by 
the producer to observe the compulsory retention period and a declaration 
to the effect that he is aware of the conditions governing the grant. All this 
information is generally included in a form of up to four pages, which 
poses no practical difficulties for declarants. 
Compulsory annexes, comprising farm registers (DE and EL) and a 
document accompanying or identifying the animals (BE, FR, IE and UK), 
are appended in certain Member States. It is not general practice for the 
accompanying document to be presented at the same time since the 
Regulation covering the sector allows the Member States under certain 
conditions to use a comprehensive list of livestock instead of individual 
documents. However, where they exist, accompanying documents are to 
be presented to the authorities when the aid application is submitted. Some 
Member States keep such documents at the department concerned during 
the retention period (BE, FR, IE and UK). The Commission recommends 
this practice, which provides one of the best safeguards for complying with 
the compulsory retention period, in cases where the animal cannot move 
without an accompanying document under the veterinary rules applicable. 
Applications are generally submitted to the local offices (at provincial, 
nomos or departmental level), which undertake an initial administrative 
check of applications in addition to registering them and provide 
information and advice to producers (along similar lines in all Member 
States). Submission periods vary according to the type of premium 
concerned: 
special premium for male bovine animals: continuous submission 
(AT, BE, DK, DE, ES, FR, SE and UK); two or three periods 
lasting one or two months (EL, FI, IE, IT, LU, NL and PT). In the 
case of DK, DE and SE, the special premium for male bovine 
animals is granted after slaughter on presentation of slaughterhouse 
certificates, which are subject to special checks; 
suckler-cow premium: one or two periods lasting one or two 
months; 
sheep premium and compensatory allowance for natural handicaps: 
generally a single period; all applications are often submitted 
together on the same form. 
3.5 Administrative structures 
The cross-sector nature of the Integrated System has induced the Member 
States to adjust their administrative structures. New units have been 
established (e.g. in BE, FR and PT), major restructuring has taken place 
(e.g. in NL and IE) and in general staff has been increased. 
Three main types of organization have been adopted, involving: 
• centralized payments, checking and submission of applications 
(DK, IE, IT, LU and PT); 
• binding national rules, with regional application subject to 
verification by a central body (AT, BE, EL, FR, FI, NL and SE); 
• national interpretation of regulatory constraints, with responsibility 
for implementation at regional level (DE, ES and UK). 
3.6 Computerized crosschecks 
In addition to straight crosschecks on each aid application submitted to 
ensure that aid is only paid once on each parcel and animal, one of the 
basic functions of administrative checks is to conduct systematic 
crosschecking with identification/registration files covering agricultural 
parcels and livestock. Given the large number of applications for 
processing in a relatively short time, such verification can only be fully 
effective if it is computerized. 
In accordance with the regulatory obligation to verify the grounds for 
payment of area aid, the Commission has required the Member States to 
introduce efficient computerized crosschecks so that any anomaly can be 
detected systematically and as quickly as possible. In addition to detecting 
the splitting-up of holdings through registers of farmers, efforts have 
focused on the validation of parcel references via official sources (land 
registry). Checks to ensure that references exist, to compare areas 
cultivated with official figures and to detect duplicate declarations have 
been developed in particular. 
In the stockfarming sector, crosschecks of basic data on animal 
identification and aid applications mean that one or more criteria governing 
eligibility for the premium can be verified from the administrative stage, 
using recorded data like the identification number, date of birth, sex, 
breed, holder and retention period. 
3.7 Summary of statistics of checks 
The Commission has prepared questionnaires on checks conducted and 
results obtained. Although all Member States have not forwarded all the 
data requested, certain conclusions can nevertheless be drawn, on the basis 
of replies forwarded, concerning the practical introduction of the Integrated 
System and checks conducted. 
Late submission of aid applications entails a 1% reduction per day in the 
amounts covered by the application. Where the overrun in the deadline 
exceeds 20 days, the application is inadmissible and no aid is payable. In 
1993 and 1994, the percentage of late applications was generally low. The 
Community average for area aid applications submitted over 20 days late 
was 0.1%. The figure for aid applications relating to livestock is slightly 
higher at 0.2%. Although the number of applications submitted late but 
within 20 days of the deadline was higher, the Community average was 
below 1%. It may be concluded that although they wait until the last 
minute to submit their aid applications, the overwhelming majority of 
farmers do comply with the time limit. 
Obviously, in some Member States, the first year of application of the 
system did pose some problems. For example, a large number of area aid 
applications were not completed properly and had to be corrected in 1993 
(e.g. for mistakes in identifying parcels, calculating the rate of set-aside, 
etc.). In the stockfarming sector, where the detailed rules of application 
governing aid schemes have undergone less change, the number of 
applications containing anomalies was smaller. 
A significant improvement was observed in 1994, the second year of 
application. The provision of preprinted declarations readily available to 
farmers and the possibility, in certain Member States, of submitting 
applications in computerized form through producer organizations should 
bring a further improvement in the future. 
10 
As regards on-the-spot inspections, the minimum percentage of 
applications subject to checks is set at 5% for area aid and 10% for 
livestock. The Community average for checks actually conducted is 
slightly over 7% for areas. Although the figure for livestock aid 
applications seems fairly high (17% in 1993), some Member States (in 
particular France and Portugal) have conducted the minimum number only 
(10%). The percentage of applications for area aid verified by remote 
sensing has risen. In 1993, 31% of checks covering area aid applications 
were conducted by this method. The figure rose to 40% in 19941. 
The percentage of area aid applications where amounts applied for were 
reduced in 1994 as a consequence of on-the-spot checks amounted to 
2.2%; in 0.7% of applications, the amounts were reduced without penalties 
being applied; penalties were applied in 1% of cases and 0.5% were 
rejected out of hand. In 1993, penalties were applied or aid applications 
were rejected in 0.8% of cases relating to areas against 1% of cases 
relating to livestock. The penalties laid down under the Integrated System 
have acted as a deterrent and in general the rate of compliance has been 
acceptable. 
PART-FINANCING 
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 introduces Community part-financing 
of expenditure covering the implementation of the Integrated Administration and 
Control System as regards temporary staff resources and data-processing and 
technical equipment. Initially set at three years from 1992, the duration of the 
part-financing arrangements was extended to the end of 1995 in view of the work 
still to be completed and the transitional period laid down for the introduction of 
the system. 
On account of the late publication of the Regulation, the Member States could 
only draw the Community financial contribution from 1993, although five Member 
States (DK, DE, FR, NL and UK) did take advantage of the possibility offered to 
include expenditure relating to 1992 in their financing applications for 1993. 
Of the ECU 50 million available in the 1993 budget, Member States' expenditure 
amounted to ECU 44 million, a rate of utilization of 88%. 
In 1994, Member States' expenditure accounted for around 76% of the ECU 50 
million of Community appropriations available. 
A special report on controls by remote sensing will be presented during 1996 in accordance with 
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 165/94. 
11 
Under-utilization of appropriations stems from the fact that certain Member States 
do not use their allocations under Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92. 
(BE,DK,EL,ES,IT,Lu,PT,UK) Some expenditure incurred by others has been 
rejected as ineligible (unconnected with the introduction of the Integrated System). 
A few Member States' requirements substantially exceed the appropriations 
allocated to them; however, given the delays in setting up the Integrated System, 
they were not able to qualify for part-financing during the period when provision 
existed. (DE,FR,IE,NL) 
As regards 1995, although the final expenditure will only be known in May 1996, 
the trend can be worked out on the basis of the Member States' forecasts, which 
point to an overall rate of utilization of around 92% of the ECU 43 360 million 
available (including expenditure in the three new Member States). 
In total, as an initial investment Community part-financing on the introduction of 
this entirely new system of controls represents significantly less than 1% of 
expenditure on the relevant aid schemes for a single year. When set against the 
proportionately very small cost of the initial investment and the very lengthy 
period over which the system is expected to function, the greater effectiveness of 
controls achieved through part-financing is clearly fully worthwhile. 
SCOPE OF INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 
Product groups covered as from the inception of the Integrated System comprised 
arable crops (cereals, oilseeds, protein plants and set-aside), beef/veal (special 
premium, suckler-cow premium), sheepmeat (ewe premium), compensatory 
allowance for less-favoured areas (solely as regards payments in respect of 
livestock). 
The Integrated System has applied to the ewe premium scheme and the 
compensatory allowance from 1 January 1994 only. 
Since then, its scope has widened, in particular as a result of the inclusion of 
linseed under the arrangements for arable crops. The reform of the arrangements 
covering rice makes provision for that product group to be covered by the 
Integrated System too. 
In addition to the abovementioned arrangements, which provide for aid per hectare 
paid directly to the farmers, other schemes exist which are indirectly linked to the 
land cultivated. Although the Integrated System should not cover them in toto, 
provision should be made for some components of the System to apply. Under the 
reform of the arrangements covering dried fodder, for example, agricultural 
parcels are to be identified using the method applying in the Integrated System, 
so that crosschecks with other utilizations can be conducted. The same approach 
is followed for cotton. 
The Member States can also extend the systems they introduce to other schemes. 
By way of an example, some States have decided to include agri-environmental 
measures. 
12 
The progressive introduction of the agricultural parcel identification system will 
afford further possibilities of introducing aid schemes linked to area. A system for 
identifying and registering parcels permits uniform monitoring of measures 
applying to land management. In the future, consideration could be given at 
Community level to extending the Integrated System to cover agri-environmental 
and afforestation measures (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and No 
2080/92), compensatory allowances for land, and other product groups like hemp. 
The same working methods will need to be followed with regard to the register 
of olive cultivation and the vineyard register. 
SITUATION AT 31 DECEMBER 1995 
Area aid 
As at 31 December 1995 all Member States have taken the requisite steps to 
introduce the Integrated System, though they have not all made the same progress. 
Member States fall into three groups: 
Member States where work of limited scale remains to be done or some 
improvements made, although if they are not implemented immediately 
this will not call into question the acceptability of the system in place (DE, 
DK, ES, IT and NL); 
• Member States where programmes for identifying parcels (BE, IE and UK) 
or defining databases (FR, LU and AT) have been undertaken and a few 
more months are needed for their completion; 
• Member States (EL, PT, FI and SE) where work still to be completed on 
parcel identification is such that completion during 1996 cannot be 
confirmed. 
Aid in respect of livestock 
Implementing legislation for Directive 92/102/EEC has been adopted in all 
Member States except Ireland and Italy, where infringement procedures are under 
way. However, a single identification! system operates effectively in Ireland. 
Implementing legislation for the Directive (and rules of application) is being 
adopted in the new Member States. 
Farm registers have been introduced for beef and veal. However, shortcomings 
have been observed in Spain and Italy, where records are frequently incomplete 
since they simply repeat the particulars given in aid applications. The introduction 
of official farm registers has not been fully completed in Greece and Portugal. For 
sheepmeat, registers will generally be in use in the first half of 1996 only. 
13 
Two Member States have completed introduction of the Integrated System, namely 
Belgium and the Netherlands. Four Member States have a system which, although 
satisfactory, could be improved in certain aspects. These are Denmark 
(crosschecks and registers), France, Ireland and Luxembourg (data-processing 
system for crosschecks). 
Four Member States' (and the three new Member States') systems are incomplete 
and on significant points are still in the developmental phase: 
- Germany is introducing a central database in order to conduct crosschecks 
nationally; the database will permit checks covering livestock movements 
between Lander; 
- Portugal and Greece are introducing computerized crosschecks with the 
livestock identification database; Greece also needs to complete marking 
and registering of livestock; 
- the United Kingdom needs to improve security in its system for issuing 
identification numbers. 
Two Member States' systems show shortcomings and/or are lagging behind: 
- Spain has established a detailed organization plan but its practical 
introduction as regards both livestock identification/registration and 
crosschecks is in the early stages only; 
- Italy has not adopted implementing legislation for Directive 92/102/EEC, 
and as a result there are shortcomings in livestock identification and 
registration and possibilities of verification are consequently very limited. 
Overall, work still remains to be done and the corresponding programmes are 
under way in many Member States, in particular to step up the effectiveness of 
crosschecks. 
REMARKS IN CONNECTION WITH CLEARANCE OF ACCOUNTS 
The introduction of the Integrated System has gone hand-in-hand with active 
coordination and advisory work by the Directorate-General for Agriculture. During 
the transitional period covering the introduction of the Integrated System for the 
1 January 1996 deadline, controls under the clearance of accounts were intended 
to be especially deterrent. Furthermore, even where a system devised by a Member 
State was appraised favourably by the Commission, the way it actually functioned 
needed to be checked to see there were no failings. 
As checks were conducted almost concurrently with the introduction of the system 
by the Member State, the main objective was to detect any shortcomings and 
identify the risks inherent in the way it operated so the Member State could take 
the necessary measures to remedy problems noted. 
14 
Many positive and negative remarks regarding the first and second years of 
application were made to the Member States, which were all concerned, albeit to 
various degrees. In cases where a particular Member State did not comply with 
the regulations or control provisions applicable on the entry into force of the 
system or did not take the transitional measures agreed with the Commission, the 
latter will draw the financial consequences resulting from the failings observed in 
the clearance of accounts. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The adoption of the CAP reform in general and the introduction of the Integrated 
System in particular have compelled the Member States to reorganize their 
administration and controls. This necessary adaptation has entailed a substantial 
effort on their part. The setting-up of the agricultural parcel identification system 
and the system for identifying livestock together with the introduction of 
computerized databases has called for considerable work and significant 
investments. 
This work was monitored very closely by the Commission departments. In each 
Member State, discussions and on-the-spot inspections concerning the introduction 
of the Integrated System took place at least once every six months. In addition, 
within the EAGGF Committee, ten meetings lasting one or two days were devoted 
entirely to discussions on the introduction of the Integrated System. On two 
occasions during those meetings, on-the-spot inspections of systems introduced by 
the Member States were organized (Italy and Belgium). 
The initial situation varied substantially from one Member State to another 
depending on the scale of data immediately available. Some Member States were 
able to base their parcel identification systems on existing land-registry data or 
reliable, updated topographical maps while others had to set up a system 
practically from scratch. Technically speaking, the introduction of the livestock 
identification system presents fewer difficulties. However, problems, which arose 
in several Member States, involving coordination between departments responsible 
for verifying aid and veterinarians delayed the introduction of this component of 
the Integrated System. 
In view of the diversity and scale of the technical and administrative problems to 
be solved, it must be observed that the Member States all experienced difficulties 
in meeting the deadline for the introduction of the Integrated System as a whole. 
At the present stage and in order to avoid financial corrections based on 
Regulation (EEC) n" 729/70, one additional year should suffice to complete work 
to bring the system fully into operation. For this reason, it is proposed to delay 
by one year the date of definitive implementation. A draft Regulation 
proposing an amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 along these lines 
is attached to this report. 
In the light of that proposal putting back the final date for implementation of the 
Integrated System, the Commission feels that one further extension of one year 
is needed for the part-financing arrangements provided for in Article 10(2) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92. 
15 
The draft Regulation also proposes an amendment to the provisions on the date 
of submission of area aid applications to allow the Member States to set the date 
without requesting the Commission's authorization. Such an amendment to the 
Regulation will simplify administrative procedures. In addition, the Commission 
has always found it difficult to take a decision on dates to be set each year on the 
basis of past experience, given the way systems change from one year to the next. 
By setting the deadline for the submission of aid applications themselves, the 
Member States will assume the responsibility of seeing to the proper 
administrative and financial management of aid and the execution of controls 
within the time limits laid down. 
Furthermore, the draft Regulation contains no proposal to extend the scope 
of the Integrated System. Such amendments will be adopted under the 
relevant regulations covering the product groups concerned. 
At this stage, observations during on-the-spot inspections and via expert groups 
show that the Integrated System has proved to be an excellent instrument for 
gathering information on the situation in the field and conducting controls. Many 
of its components are already operational and the others will come into force 
within one year. Foreseeably, various functions such as parcel/livestock 
identification and the aid application database will allow other types of aid to be 
covered from the technical and administration viewpoints in the near future. This 
will assist the Member States, in so far as they will reap the benefit of their 
investments on the introduction of the System and their tasks will be facilitated. 
The Commission should support the trend towards wider utilization of the 
Integrated System, which must ultimately reduce the cost of processing and 
monitoring aid, improve management and provide a better service to the farmer, 
thanks to greater clarity, speed and security in processing applications. 
16 
Annex Integrated Administration and Control System 
Report to the Council 
Situation in the Member States. 
Land 
Parcel identification system: Development of parcel administration software still in 
progress 
Data base: Will be centralized under Oracle; development in progress 
Cross-checks: Wll be carried out at the level of farm parcels, effective once 
system set up 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive* transposed for bovine animals, in progress for ovine 
animals. Double marking (within thirty days by the farmer, within six months by the 
identifying agent). 
Register: Farm register made up of identification files to be accompanied by a 
summary. 
Data base: Central identification register, computerized and linked to the 
"premiums" data base. 
Cross-checks: effective because of computerized linking of the two data bases. The parcel identification system 
will use: the agricultural parcel 
identified on the individualized 
orthophoto plan produced for each 
farmer 
Completion of work: validation 
after 1996 declaration. First 
large-scale operation in 1996. 
Overall, the system is satisfactory 
and operational 
Completion of work: 
system complete 
17 
Danmark Land 
Parcel identification system: being developed; blocks will contain 5 to 10 
agricultural parcels. 
Data base: Although the system was improved in 1995, there is still a very large 
number of anomalies. 
Cross-checks: at present checks are not effective, but should be improved by the 
new parcel identification system 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine animals), very clear marking using 
plastic rings. 
Register: different types of farm register, official register to be defined. 
Data bases: Register of marking rings issued, central base for the computerized 
administration of applications. 
Cross-checks: effective, but not systematic between the 2 data bases. The parcel identification system 
will use: crop blocks defined by 
the authorities, marked on 
individualized maps for the 
farmers. 
Completion of work: expected 
end of 1995 
Satisfactory overall, registers to 
be improved 
Completion of work: 
validation in 1996 
Deutschland Land 
Parcel identification system: system complete (except Saxony Anhalt, where 
development in progress). 
Data base: Organized by Land, but data not always exchanged. Regional data 
bases, even at Kreis level (Hessen) in 1995 
Cross-checks: validation using computerized land register partly in place (e.g. 
BW, NW, SH, HE...) 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine, ovine and caprine animals), single 
identification system in place from October 1995 (plastic tags attached by the 
farmer). 
Register: single farm register for veterinary purposes and for premiums. 
Data bases: regional identification registers not interconnected, creation of central 
data base in Munich . 
Cross-checks: will be carried out by Bavaria for all the Lander, first tests in 
November 1995. The parcel identification system 
will use: in the case of 11/16 
Lander: the agricultural parcel with 
direct reference to the land 
register; in the case of 5/16: the 
Feldstuck (block) 
Completion of work: With a few 
exceptions, in place for the end of 
1995. 
System development in progress 
Completion of work: 
during 1996 
Land 
Parcel identification system: Phase 1 invitation to tender (creation of digital 
orthophotos) cancelled (and reissued 1-Sep-95). Phase 2 announced 1-Oct-95. 
Data base: Centralized, and in 1995 enabled 150 000 declaration papers to be 
pre-printed - but divided into 52 dBASE files (by Prefecture) 
Cross-checks: not currently being made on parcel data. 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine, ovine and caprine animals), marking 
by veterinarians (plastic rings) in progress for bovine animals, from January 1996 
for ovine animals. 
Register: detailed farm registers under veterinary supervision, copy in local 
veterinary office. 
Data bases: development of 2 data bases (identification and applications) with 
computer link. 
Cross-checks: document-based checks pending completion of computerized 
system, cross-checks using copies of the abovementioned farm registers 
endorsed by veterinary officials. The parcel identification system 
will use: crop blocks defined by 
the authorities, marked on 
orthophoto plans. 
Completion of work: the 
cancellation of Phase 1 delayed 
completion by a further year - no 
chance of completion before the 
end of 1996. 
System still being developed, 
making progress thanks to the 
support of the veterinary service. ' 
Completion of work: 
computerized system to be 
completed during 1996 
19 
Land 
Parcel identification system: system complete; however, land register quality 
varies according to region. 
Data base: centralized, including parcel data 
Cross-checks: carried out regionally and centrally, with occasional regional 
differences 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed for bovine animals, marking inadequate in 
certain regions. 
Register: farm register limited to animals for which a premium application is 
made. 
Data bases: local identification registers, not interconnected, central data base for 
applications. 
Cross-checks: effective where using the application data base, inadequate with 
regard to identification files. The parcel identification system 
will use: the agricultural parcel 
with direct reference to the land 
register 
Completion of work: system 
complete, in operation during 
1995. 
Development of a coherent 
system in collaboration with the 
regions. 
Completion of work: 
during 1996 
20 
Land 
Parcel identification system: reference-based system being developed (planned 
for first quarter of 1996). Mixed system (simplified scheme:land register parcel; 
general scheme:the block). 
Data base: award of Pacage contract planned before the end of 1995; no use 
planned for 1996 declarations. 
Cross-checks: at present principally manual; validation of land register in 
progress; first cross-checks of parcel references in 1996 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine, ovine and caprine animals), double 
marking of bovine animals (by the farmer at birth, by the identifying agent within 
four months). 
Register: farm register in place for bovine animals, not yet systematically for 
ovine animals. 
Data bases: 2 computerized data bases (identification and applications) in each 
Département. 
Cross-checks: linkage of the two data bases per Département currently being 
systematized, cross-checking of data at national level planned from the first 
quarter of 1996. The parcel identification system 
will use: the block or the 
agricultural parcel, references to 
the land register. 
Completion of work: during 1996 
System providing guarantees, to 
be supplemented by data cross­
checking at national level 
Completion of work: 
first quarter of 1996 
21 
Ireland Land 
Parcel identification system: development in progress, aerial photography 
completed for the whole country. Structural reorganization still in progress. 
Data base: Centralized under Supra, Oracle: on-line access possible from County 
offices; development still in progress - but this year 100% of declarations were pre­
printed. A few flaws with unambiguous farm identification. 
Cross-checks: Cannot be carried out until the parcel identification system is in 
place. 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive not transposed, infringement procedure, marking using 
rings with poor legibility. 
Register, new farm registers complying with requirements. 
Data bases: development project for a new centralized computerized 
identification/registration system, central data base for applications. 
Cross-checks: carried out regionally and centrally. The parcel identification system 
will use: Forage (90% of 
declarations) - blocks defined by 
the farmer; cereals - borders of 
the agricultural parcels; both on 
the 1995 orthophoto plans. 
Completion of work: last 
validations after 1996 
declarations. 
System improvement planned for 
1996 (computerized livestock 
registration) 
Completion of work: 1996 
Italia Land 
Parcel identification system: operational; reference system clearer every year. 
Data base: Centralized, Oracle; but decentralized data input presents some quality 
problems. 
Cross-checks: detailed, but no very satisfactory way of solving the problems 
identified has yet been found. 
Livestock The parcel identification system 
will use: direct reference to the 
land register 
Completion of work: system 
complete. 
Identification: Directive not transposed, infringement procedure, marking 
inconsistent or non-existent. 
Register: farm registers often incomplete. 
Data bases: central identification register which only covers animals for which 
premium applications are made, central data base for applications. 
Cross-checks: central, but incomplete identification data base. Very unsatisfactory, undertaking 
by the Ministry of Health to 
regularize situation before 
summer 1995 
Completion of work: 1996 
22 
Luxembourg Land The parcel identification system 
Parcel identification system: reference system operational; land register data will use: direct reference to the 
base available. land register. 
Data base: SIGC studies in 1995; 62% of declarations pre-printed in 1995. Completion of work:in principle 
Cross-checks: carried out after payments in 1995. planned for mid-1996. 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine, ovine and caprine animals),marking 
clear and generally applied, within six months or before moving the animal. 
Register: farm registers well designed and well kept. Improvement of the computerized 
Data bases: central identification register managed by veterinarians, central data system for the end of 1995 
base for applications. Completion of work:validation in 
Cross-checks: carried out centrally. 1996 
Nederland Land The parcel identification system 
Parcel identification system: development in progress, with the topographical will use: topographical blocks, 
department in charge of implementing and administering the project. Project test defined by the authorities, 
with 2 000 declarants facilitated planning for 1996. Completion of work: planned for 
Data base: centralized since Jan. 1995; system being developed. the end of 1995. 
Cross-checks: limited at present - improvements expected in 1996 when the 
parcel identification system is in place. 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine and ovine animals), very clear double 
marking by the producers. System satisfactory overall. 
Register: farm registers using identification records. 
Data bases: central identification/registration system with automatic safeguards, Completion of work: 
central data base for applications. system complete 
Cross-checks: carried out using the central data bases. 
23 
Portugal Land 
Parcel identification system: Award of contracts (creation of parcel identification 
system) planned in Nov. 1995; work schedule extended to end of 1996. 
Data base: Centralized - but redevelopment expected for 1997 (SINGA) 
Cross-checks: detailed, but inefficient because of the current weakness of the 
parcel identification system 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed (bovine, ovine and caprine animals), metal tags 
replaced this year by plastic tags, tattooing for ovine animals. 
Register: farm registers in place, definition of an official register underway. 
Data bases: local or regional identification files, project for the creation of a central 
file, central data base for applications. 
Cross-checks: to be improved using an animal identification file. The parcel identification system 
will use: crop blocks and 
agricultural parcels defined by the 
authorities, marked on orthophoto 
plans. 
Completion of work: 1.1.97 
proposed by the INGA. 
System improvement in progress. 
Completion of work: 
during 1996 
United 
M Kingdom Land 
Parcel identification system: England and Wales have finally adopted a strategy; 
Scotland carrying out production tests in 1995; in Northern Ireland strategy and 
progress are satisfactory overall. 
Data base: England and Scotland - centralized, development in progress, end of 
work 1995; Wales - still three separate data bases with manual data exchange; 
Northern Ireland generally operational end of 1995. 
Cross-checks: Need to validate declaration data (especially in England) - except 
for Northern Ireland, where validation should be completed for end 1995. 
Livestock . 
Identification: Directive transposed for bovine animals, marking within thirty days 
by the farmer, single identification number, various types of approved marking. 
Register: in place, but no uniform model. 
Data bases: data base of tags issued, regional data bases for applications. 
Cross-checks: cross-checks with identification file to be improved. The parcel identification system 
will use: England and Wales: 
topographical maps checked by 
the authorities; Scotland: blocks 
validated with Ordnance Survey 
digital data; Northern Ireland: 
individual plans of farms, updated 
by the authorities. 
Completion of work: England 
and Wales: 1996; Scotland and 
Northern Ireland: 1.1.1996. 
Checks on the use of tags issued 
and links between data bases to 
be improved. 
Completion of work: 
during 1996 
New Member States - Deadline 1997 
24 
Osterreich Land The parcel identification system 
will use: the Feldstuck (block), 
based on the land register. 
Completion of work planned for Parcel identification system: Pre-printing of 100 000 declarations (50%) ; 
compilation of parcels declared (+/- 2 million) on "master cards" in local offices 
before 1995 declaration. 
Database: In July 1995 work schedule insufficiently detailed but satisfactory overall ! 11 1997 
for the first year. 
Cross-checks: a list of checks for 1995 was submitted, but was limited by the state 
of development of computerized tools. No direct computerized link with the land 
register before 1996 - although references are available at the land registry. 
Livestock 
Identification: Transposition of Directive in progress, various marking systems ] System still to be developed, 
administered by associations, project for single numbering system and double \ identification data base to be 
marking. 
Register: farm register in place, but not yet generally kept effectively. 
Data bases: local identification files administered by veterinarians and associations; 
central data base for applications being developed. 
Cross-checks: not yet operational. created. 
Completion of work: 
planned for 1.1.1997 
25 
Suomi/Finland Land 
Parcel identification system: Reference based on photocopies, plans or 
photographic plans with sequential numbering in 1995. Validation of data 
submitted by declarants in digital format planned for 1996. . 
Data base: Centralized, development in progress. Data input at local level. 
Cross-checks: A list of checks for 1995 has been submitted to the Commission. 
Livestock 
Identification: Directive transposed, plastic tags attached by the farmer 
Register: in place . 
Data bases: computerized administration of identification, data base for 
applications being developed. 
Cross-checks: still at project stage. The parcel identification system 
will use: crop blocks, possibly 
validated against orthophotos. 
Completion of work: planned 
1.1.1997, but no work schedule in 
place at present. 
System still to be developed: 
checks on issuing of tags to be 
stepped up, cross-checks to be 
put in place 
Completion of work: 
planned for 1.1.1997 
Sverige Land 
Parcel identification system: Agricultural parcel identified using topographical 
plans (of varying quality), with numbering system linked to the "fastighet" (farm 
block in the land register). However, steps to improve the system should be 
discussed as soon as possible. 
Data base: proper commencement of implementation, but still being developed. 
Cross-checks: detection of parcel problems, but manual checks are still required 
to resolve them. 
Livestock 
Identification: transposition of Directive in progress, multiple identification and 
marking systems, start-up of a single system in 1995. 
Register: official farm register in place, its design to be reviewed. 
Data bases: at planning stage. 
Cross-checks: detailed project being developed. The parcel identification system 
will use: not yet decided. 
Completion of work: estimated 
beginning of 1997, more detailed 
schedule expected. 
System still to be developed. 
Completion of work: 
planned for 1.1.1997 
26 
PROPOSAL FOR 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No /96 
of 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administrative 
and control system for certain Community aid schemes ("integrated system") 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
43 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, 
Whereas Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 19923 
provides that area aid applications must be submitted during the first quarter of the year; 
whereas, however, the Commission may allow a Member State to fix a date for the 
submission of area aid applications between 1 April and the dates referred to in Articles 10, 
11 and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support 
system for producers of certain arable crops4; whereas, in the light of experience, it should be 
possible for Member States to set the deadline for the submission of applications on their own 
responsibility without seeking the authorization of the Commission, taking into account in 
OJ No C .... 
Opinion delivered on 
OJ No L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3235/94 (OJ No 
L 338, 28.12.1994, p. 16.). 
OJ No L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1664/95 (OJ No 
L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 13). 
27 
particular the time required for all relevant data to be available for the proper administrative 
and financial management of the aid and for checks to be carried out; 
Whereas Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 provides that all the elements of the 
integrated system are to apply from 1 January 1996 at the latest; whereas, in view of 
experience gained, notably in setting up alphanumeric identification systems for agricultural 
parcels and data bases, this deadline should be postponed for one year; 
Whereas, given the considerable investment required to ensure that the integrated system is 
established definitively, provision should be made to prolong by one year the period for 
which the Community financial contribution may be granted, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article J 
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 is hereby amended as follows: 
1.Article 6(2) is replaced by the following: 
"2. Area aid applications must be submitted by a date to be set by the Member State which 
may not be later than the dates referred to in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 
1765/92. 
In all cases, the date shall be set bearing in mind, inter alia, the period required for all 
relevant data to be available for the proper administrative and financial management of the 
aid and for the checks provided for in Article 8 to be carried out." 
2. Article 10(2) is amended as follows: 
(a) The first subparagraph is replaced by the following: 
28 
"The Community's financial contribution shall be granted for a period of five years 
from 1992, within the limits of the appropriations allocated for this purpose." 
(b) The third subparagraph is replaced by the following: 
"The total amount shall be shared among the Member States as follows: 
"for 1995: 
Belgium 2,2 
Denmark 2,3 
Germany 9,2 
Greece 8,0 
Spain 16,5 
France 13,3 
Ireland 4,2 
Italy 18,1 
Luxembourg 0,6 
Netherlands 2,8 
Austria 3,3 
Portugal 5,3 
Finland 2,7 
Sweden 2,4 
United Kingdom 9,1 
for 1996: 
Belgium 1,8 
Denmark 1,9 
Germany 7,7 
Greece 6,7 
Spain 13,7 
France 11,1 
29 
Ireland 3,5 
Italy 15,1 
Luxembourg 0,5 
Netherlands 2,3 
Austria 9,3 
Portugal 4,4 
Finland 7,6 
Sweden 6,8 
United Kingdom 7,6 
for 1997: 
Austria 39,3 
Finland 32,1 
Sweden 28,6 " 
3. Article 13(l)(b) is replaced by the following: 
"(b) as regards the other elements referred to in Article 2, at the latest from: 
- 1 January 1998 in the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and 
- 1 January 1997 in the case of the other Member States." 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
Article 1(2) shall apply from 1 January 1996. 
30 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
The President 
31 

Item Bl - 360 : Monitoring and preventative measures concerning the EAGGF Guarantee 
Section 
1.TITLE OF OPERATION 
Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an 
integrated administrative and control system for certain Community aid schemes 
('integrated system') 
2.BUDGET HEADING INVOLVED 
Bl - 360 
3.LEGAL BASIS 
Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community 
4.DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION 
4.1. To prolong by one year the period of co-financing of expenditure incurred by Member 
States in implementing the integrated administrative and control system. The system was 
established to enhance the effectiveness and usefulness of the mechanisms for controlling 
aid schemes linked to area (principally arable crops and beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat) 
adopted as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. The aim of Regulation 
(EEC) No 3508/92, which introduces the integrated system, is to set up systems for 
identifying agricultural parcels and animals together with an electronic data base that can 
be used for cross-checking aid applications. Provision is made for the system to be 
definitively in place from 1 January 1996 (Austria, Finland, Sweden: from 1 January 
1997). 
The Regulation provides for Community co-financing of expenditure incurred by the 
Member States in introducing it. 
In view of the difficulties that Member States have had to face, it is proposed 
postponing the system's definitive introduction by one year (to 1 January 1997, and 1 
January 1998 for Austria, Finland and Sweden). 
For the same reason it is also proposed prolonging the co-financing arrangements for a 
year. This operation represents a part only of the control measures in the EAGGF 
Guarantee Section area covered by item B1-360. 
4.2. Period covered: one year. 
5. CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE 
5.1. Compulsory expenditure 
5.2. Non-differentiated appropriations 
32 
6 TYPE OF EXPENDITURE 
Subsidy for joint financing with other sources in the public or private sector 
(see point 9.1 for a detailed description of the type of expenditure). 
33 
7.2. 7. FINANCIAL IMPACT 
"Method of calculation: Maximum authorized as an EAGGF Guarantee Section contribution 
Itemized breakdown of cost of operation in ECU million: 
Commitment appropriations in ECU million 
(current prices) 
Co-financing of 
expenditure incurred 
by Member States 
Total Budget 
year n 
(1996) 
24* 
24 n+ 1 n + 2 n + 3 n + 4 n + 5 
and 
subs. 
years Total 
24 
24 
The breakdown in 1992 and 1993 by type of expenditure (see 9.1) was as follows: 
Data-processing structures:36%; Control structures:24%; Staff:40% 
7.3. Schedule of commitment/payment appropriations 
Commitment appropriations in ECU million 
Commitment 
appropriations 
Payment 
appropriations 
n 
n+ 1 
n + 2 
n + 3 
n + 4 
n + 5 
and subsequent years 
Total Budget 
year 
n 
(1996) 
24 n+ 1 n + 2 n + 3 n + 4 n + 5 
and 
subs. 
years Total 
24 
18 
6 
24 24 
34 
8. FRAUD PREVENTION MEASURES 
- Specific control measures planned: 
Verification of eligibility of expenditure incurred by national authorities and of consistency 
between amounts claimed and accounting documents; on-the-spot inspection visits to 
examine supporting documents and determine the progress of work or the extent to which 
operations have been implemented. 
9. ELEMENTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 
9.1. Specific and quantified objectives; target population: 
- Specific objectives: links with general objective: 
The types of expenditure covered by the operation are the following: 
Data-processing structures: host computers, including installation costs; work 
stations, PCs, network infrastructure (cables, connectors, etc.); software; costs of 
digitizing topographical maps. 
Control structures: printing and preparation of registers and forms; animal 
identifiction rings; devices for fitting them; land vehicles (e.g. 4x4) and 
equipment; equipment for measuring parcels; costs of informing farmers. 
Staff costs: expenses of temporary staff recruited for work directly linked with the 
introduction of the system or of officials specifically assigned to this work; 
systems analysts, engineers, programmers, encoders etc. 
The majority of the technical and administrative difficulties encountered by the 
Member States concern the introduction of systems for identifying parcels and 
animals. 
The initial situation differed appreciably between Member States depending on the 
extent of the data immediately available: some Member States were able to 
construct their parcel identification systems on the basis of existing land registry 
data or reliable and up-to-date topographical maps while others had to establish 
the system practically from scratch. Technically speaking, the introduction of a 
system for identifying animals presents fewer difficulties. However, coordination 
difficulties between the departments controlling the aids and veterinarians, that 
have come to light in a number of Member States, have delayed implementation 
of this element of the integrated system. 
- Target population: 
The beneficiaries of the Community's financial contribution are national 
authorities responsible for controlling aid in the agricultural field. 
35 
9.2 Grounds for the operation: 
- Need for Community financial assistance, particularly having regard to the 
principle of subsidiarity: 
The assistance is justified by the need to safeguard the Community's financial 
interests and to satisfy the requirements of the Member States, for which the work 
involved in introducing the integrated system represents a substantial additional 
financial burden. 
- Choice of ways and means: 
* advantages over possible alternatives (comparative advantages): 
the Community financial aid constitutes support for their operation and an 
incentive encouraging new initiatives. 
* examination of any similar Community or national operations: 
the operation involves the implementation of an entirely new administration 
and control system. No comparison can be made with other Community or 
nationally administered operations. 
* spin-off and multiplier effects: 
the Community assistance will contribute (for a limited period) to the 
implementation of the modern administration and control systems introduced 
by the integrated system. The expenditure on aid schemes (arable crops, 
livestock premiums) covered by the integrated system represents around 50% 
of EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure. 
The total Community co-financing required as an initial investment to set up 
this entirely new control system represents considerably less than 1% of the 
expenditure on the aid schemes in question for a single year. If the 
proportionally very low cost of the initial investment and the fact that the 
system will be required to operate for a very long time are taken into 
consideration, the co-financing is seen to be entirely cost-effective given the 
benefits in terms of more effective control. 
- Main factors of uncertainty which could affect the specific results of the 
operation: 
The factors of uncertainty include the technical problems faced by the Member 
States and their political will together with the budgetary problems they 
encounter in complying with the rules. 
9.3 Monitoring and evaluation of the operation: 
- Performance indicators: 
36 
From the information provided by the Member States on checks carried out and 
the results achieved, and from inspection visits by Commission staff, a number of 
conclusions can be drawn on the practical implementation of the integrated system 
and on the progress of controls. 
It is clear that in its first year of implementation the system has presented 
problems in a few Member States. For example, a large number of area aid 
applications were incorrectly completed and had to be corrected in 1993 (e.g. 
because of errors in identifying parcels, in calculating the rate of set-aside, etc.). 
In the livestock sector, where fewer changes were made to the scheme 
arrangements, the number of files containing anomalies was smaller. 
1994, the second year of implementation of the system, saw a distinct 
improvement. The availability of preprinted declaration forms for farmers and the 
possibility, in some Member States, of submitting applications in electronic form 
through producers' organizations are expected to improve the situation further in 
the future. 
For on-the-spot inspection visits, the minimum percentage of files to be checked 
is set at 5% for area-linked aid and 10% for livestock aid. The Community 
average for checks actually carried out is slightly above 7% for area-linked aid. 
While the equivalent figure for livestock aid (17% in 1993) seems fairly high, 
some Member States (notably France and Portugal) only carried out the minimum. 
The number of area aid files checked using remote sensing has risen, with 31% 
of applications having been checked in this way in 1993. The figure rose to 40% 
in 1994 . 
The percentage of area aid files in which the amount sought was reduced 
following on-the-spot inspections amounted to 2,2% in 1994: 0,7% of applications 
were reduced without penalty; 1% had a penalty applied and 0,5% were rejected 
outright. In 1993, 0,8% of area aid applications had a penalty applied or were 
rejected as against 1% of livestock aid applications. From this it can be inferred 
that the penalties introduced under the integrated system have had a deterrent 
effect and that as a rule the level of compliance has been acceptable. 
Details and frequency of planned evaluation: 
The implementation of the integrated system has been monitored very closely by 
the Commission. Discussions and control visits have taken place in each Member 
State at least quarterly. Ten one- or two-day meetings of the EAGGF Committee 
have been given over entirely to discussion of the introduction of the system. 
A report has been prepared for the Council giving details of the setting up of the 
system and setting out findings regarding its implementation. 
Assessment of the results obtained (where an existing operation is to be continued 
or renewed) 
37 
Given the wide range of technical and administrative problems to be resolved and 
their scale, all Member States are having difficulties in respecting the deadline for 
bringing all the elements of the integrated system into effect. As matters now 
stand, there is reason to believe that with an extra year to complete the work the 
system will be fully operational. 
38 




ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 174 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-184-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-03032-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg