2009
EUROPEAN UNION FOOD AID FOR 
DEPRIVED PERSONS : AN ASSESSMENT 
OF THE OBJECTIVES, THE MEANS AND THE METHODS EMPLOYEDEUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS
Special Report  No 6
EN
ISSN 1831-0834

EUROPEAN UNION FOOD 
AID FOR DEPRIVED PERSONS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES, THE MEANS AND THE METHODS EMPLOYEDSpecial Report  No 6   2009
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed2
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu
Special Report  No 6   2009
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009ISBN 978-92-9207-340-4doi: 10.2865/2420
© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed3
CONTENTS
Paragraph
I–IX  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1–17  INTRODUCTION
1–7  MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMME
8–13  OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS
14–17  DISTRIBUTION CHAIN: THE CHARITABLE ORGANISATIONS
18–22  AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
23–75  OBSERVATIONS
23–33   THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME 
REMAIN VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?
23–24  THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES
25–27  WHEN INTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS TENUOUS
28–31  THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT
32–33  COORDINATION WITH OTHER SOCIAL POLICY MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPROVED
34–47   THE MEANS AND METHODS EMPLOYED: ARE THE MEANS COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES 
SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?
34–41  BETTER TARGETING OF RECIPIENTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION’
42–47   THE VARIETY OF FOOD MADE AVAILABLE IS CONSTRAINED BY THE INTERVENTION STORAGE LINK, 
AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY
48–70  THE PROGRAMME’S ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION: ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?
48–59  SHORTCOMINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES
60–70 TENDERING PROCEDURES NEED IMPROVING AND HARMONISING
71–75  REFORM PROPOSAL: A RECENT COMMISSION INITIATIVE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMME
76–85  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 ANNEX I –  POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY ANNEX II –  BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS AND ALLOCATION AMONG THE MEMBER STATES ANNEX III –  PRODUCTS ALLOCATED AND FINAL RECIPIENTS — ANNUAL PLAN 2005
 ANNEX IV –  NEEDS COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION’S ALLOCATION 
OF INTERVENTION STOCKS
 REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed4
EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
I.
The programme of food aid for deprived  
persons was first introduced in 1987. It  was designed to release products that were 
available in Community intervention stocks 
to charitable organisations for free distribu-
tion to persons in need.
II.
The measure has two main objectives: a  social one (to make a significant contribution to the well-being of deprived persons) and 
a market one (stabilisation of the markets  of agricultural products through the reduc-tion of intervention stocks). The budget for the programme was 307 million euro in 2008 (for 19 Member States) and is increased to 500 million euro for 2009.
III.
The paying agencies, responsible for inter-vention stocks in the Member States, were given responsibility for managing the  programme. At operational level, the pro-gramme is managed by charitable organi-sations, which receive and distribute the  foodstuffs to deprived persons. The signifi-cant decline in intervention stocks in recent 
years means that the bulk of the products  
for distribution had to be purchased on the 
market (85 % in 2008).IV.
The audit focused on the validity of the  
intended aims in the context of an evolving market and social situation, the adequacy of 
the means made available, the programme’s 
impact, and the administrative and manage-
ment procedures.
V.
The financing of the programme under CAP 
expenditure was initially justified because  of the use of intervention stocks. However, when intervention stocks were reduced to  
almost zero in recent years the link of the  
programme with agricultural expenditure  
became tenuous. Participation in the pro-gramme is voluntary with some Member  
States considering that the measure should 
not be financed from the EAGF budget.
VI.
The measure was designed to alleviate pov-erty but not to eliminate it. In this regard the resources made available can only have a  
limited impact on the situation of individual 
deprived persons, offering on average the  
equivalent of one meal per month to its ben-
eficiaries. Therefore, in order to enhance its effectiveness, it is necessary to better target 
the aid and to ensure better coordination  
with social policy. Furthermore, the exist-
ing provisions constrain the variety of the  
products to be distributed, while the pro-cedures applied in the entire distribution  chain result in different treatment of final  beneficiaries in terms of the quantity of food provided per person.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed5
VII.
The fact that the programme is managed at 
operational level by thousands of charitable organisations, mainly staffed by volunteers 
and dealing with an unstable and not easily 
monitored target population, poses particu-
lar challenges for the administration of the 
scheme. Monitoring and reporting systems 
at Commission and Member States levels  have to be improved, as well as the method-
ology for allocating the financial resources between the Member States. Finally, the ten-dering procedures employed by the Mem-
ber States differ considerably and do not  
ensure equal access to all EU operators and 
the broadest competition. Thus there is the risk that best conditions are not achieved  
always for products withdrawn from inter-
vention stocks or for those purchased on the 
open market. It is also considered that the 
bartering arrangements used are cumber-
some and difficult to control.
VIII.
The Commission has recently made a pro-
posal to reform the programme, which  
would go some way to addressing certain  
of the weaknesses highlighted by the Court’s audit.EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
IX.
As the Budgetary Authorities favour the con-
tinuation of the programme, the Court makes a number of recommendations concerning 
the appropriateness of financing the pro-
gramme under CAP expenditure, the need  
for increasing the impact of the measure,  
the integration of the programme into the 
social policy framework, the expansion of  the variety of the products distributed, the 
need for improvement of the distribution  methods as well as the management, moni-toring and tendering procedures.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed6
INTRODUCTION
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMME
 1.  The origin of the programme for deprived persons goes back to 1987 
when Europe was affected by an exceptionally cold winter which had 
particularly severe consequences for the most vulnerable individu-
als, i.e. the deprived persons. In order to alleviate the humanitar-ian emergency the Community adopted measures to release various 
foodstuffs, particularly agricultural products which were available in 
the Community intervention stocks
1, to charitable organisations for 
free distribution to the persons in need.
 2.  The measure was widely welcomed and subject to high demand. It was 
subsequently made permanent2 and still applies today.
 3.  The programme was innovative for the EU in the sense that its key feature 
consisted in helping the most deprived persons by distributing food 
aid to them through charitable organisations in the form of either  
prepared meals for immediate consumption or food packages.
 4.  The legal provisions governing the scheme define the most deprived 
person as follows3 (see Box 1 ).1 Agricultural products bought-in 
under public intervention 
measures aiming to stabilise 
markets and ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural 
community.
2 Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 3730/87 
(OJ L 352, 15.12.1987, p. 1).
3 Article 1 of Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 
(OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50).
THE DEFINITION OF ‘MOST DEPRIVED PERSONS’
‘The most deprived persons’ means physical persons, whether individuals, families or groups composed 
of such persons, whose social and financial dependence is recorded or recognised on the basis of eli-gibility criteria adopted by the competent authorities, or is judged to be so on the basis of the criteria used by charitable organisations and which are approved by the competent authorities.BOX 1
Source : Charitable Organisations.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed7
 5.  This definition makes it difficult to quantify the programme’s target 
group. For the purpose of allocating the programme’s funds to Mem-
ber States, the Commission uses a categorisation known as the pop-
ulation ‘at risk of poverty’. This is a relative measure, defined for  
each Member State as the persons with an income below 60 % of the 
average income4. This is also a big target group, with one person in 
six being classified as ‘at risk of poverty’ within the EU as a whole  (see Box 2 ).
 6.  The resources available for the programme for the years covered by 
the audit, were 216 million euro in 2005, 264 million euro in 2006, 274 million euro in 2007 and 307 million euro in 2008
5. For 2009 this 
amount is 500 million euro.
 7.  Despite the increasing budgetary appropriations, the amount avail-
able per person in the last three years was 6,24 euro/person in 2006, 
5,73 euro/person in 2007 and 5,83 euro/person in 2008 (see Annex II ). 
These modest figures per potential beneficiary put into context the 
programme’s potential impact.4 Technically, it is the number of 
people statistically identified with 
revenue below a threshold of 60 % 
of the median equivalised income. 
Relevant data is collected and 
provided by Eurostat.
5 Budgetary appropriations 
allocated to the programme 
are indicated in budget line 
05 02 04 01 of the EU budget.
DEPRIVED PERSONS IN THE EU
In the European Union, around 80 million persons, equivalent to 16 % of the population of the EU-27 
are defined as at risk of poverty (see Annex I  for details), while around 43 million people are at risk of 
food poverty6.BOX 2
6 Impact assessment SEC(2008) 2436/2 accompanying the Commission proposal for a Council 
Regulation as regards food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, 
page 11.
People at risk of food poverty is a Eurostat indicator defined as the percentage of people who 
cannot afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed8
OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT 
AND CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS
 8.  The conditions and procedures to be followed for the implementation of 
the programme are laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87, subse-
quently incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and 
in the implementing Regulation (EEC) No 3149/927. Over the course of 
the years the rules of the programme have been modified. In 1992, an amendment was introduced whereby the products distributed should 
not necessarily be those withdrawn from the intervention stocks, and the transfer of intervention stocks between Member States was made possible. In 1995 it was decided that, in cases where a product was 
temporarily unavailable in Community intervention stocks, Member 
States could purchase similar products directly on the Community  
market.
 9.  Member States’ participation in the programme is on a voluntary basis 
with participating Member States having to notify their intention to 
the Commission each year and to communicate their perceived needs. 
The number of Member States participating in the programme has  increased in recent years: 10 in 2005, 15 in 2006, 18 in 2007 and 19 in 
2008. Annex II  shows the amounts of budgetary appropriations and 
financial allocations by Member State for the period 2005–2008.
 10.  The Commission establishes an annual plan including for each Member 
State applying the measure, the maximum financial resources to be 
made available, the quantity of each agricultural product to be with-
drawn from Community intervention stocks and the amount available for each product.
 11.  The products withdrawn from intervention stocks are generally not in a 
suitable form for direct distribution to the recipients for immediate 
consumption and therefore they have to be processed/exchanged  against final food products (see Box 3 ). This creates a significant  
complication in the management of the programme insofar as the  
operations necessary to obtain the final food products (processed  
food against products from intervention stocks and purchases) are 
subject to tendering procedures organised by the competent author-ities of the Member States. The related transport costs from the sup-
plier to the organisations are also subject to tendering procedures.7 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 
laying down general rules 
as incorporated in Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 
(OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) establishing a common 
organisation of agricultural 
markets, and Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 
of 29 October 1992 
(OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50) 
laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention 
stocks for the benefit of the 
most deprived persons in the 
Community.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed9
EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTS WITHDRAWN  
FROM INTERVENTION STOCKS AND FINAL  PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTEDBOX 3
Intervention stocks Products distributed
Ricevaporised rice• 
white rice• 
rice with milk• 
rice biscuits• 
Cerealspasta• 
biscuits• 
breakfast cereals• 
fl our• 
barley groats• 
couscous• 
Buttermilk• 
milk products• 
cheese• 
butter• 
Sugarwhite sugar• 
jam•  12.  In recent years the quantities of products in the Community intervention 
stocks have decreased very significantly due to the changed market 
situation8. Consequently, the stocks in intervention storage no longer 
cover the programme’s needs and certain products for distribution have to be purchased directly on the market. The value of the prod-ucts bought in 2006 represented 18 % of the programme’s resources, while in 2008 it was more than 85 %. For the annual plan 2008 only 
sugar was available in intervention.
 13.  At the level of the Member States the plan is implemented under the 
responsibility of the paying agencies9, which also exercise either  
directly, or via delegation to other services, the supervisory and con-
trol tasks10.8 For more details please refer 
to Special Report No 11/2008 on 
the management of the European 
Union support for the public storage operations of cereals 
(http://www.eca.europa.eu).
9 ‘Paying agency’ is the body or 
the bodies accredited by a Member State in accordance with Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 
21 June 2005 on the financing of 
the common agricultural policy 
(OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1).
10 Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3149/92 provides that checks 
should be carried out by the 
competent authorities at all stages 
of the implementation of the plan 
and at all levels of the distribution 
chain. The checks should cover at 
least 5 % of the quantity of each product to each implementation 
stage, except for the stage of 
actual distribution to the most 
deprived persons. Article 10 of 
the same Regulation sets out that Member States should send to the 
Commission an annual report on 
the implementation of the plan 
on their territory, also specifying 
the verification measures applied 
to ensure that the goods have 
achieved their intended objective and have reached the final 
recipients.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed10
DISTRIBUTION CHAIN: THE CHARITABLE 
ORGANISATIONS
 14.  The food aid is channelled to deprived persons mainly through charitable 
organisations, designated by the Member State concerned, to whom 
the products are made available free of charge. These charitable  
organisations are often structured around three levels — national, 
regional and local — and present different administrative structures (see Box 4 ). Several thousands of charitable organisations at all  
levels currently participate in the reception and distribution of the foodstuffs to deprived persons, for which purpose the Regulation  stipulates that the charitable organisations directly looking after  
the beneficiaries shall be deemed to be the final recipients of this 
distribution
11.11 Article 5a of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3149/92.
THE ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE EU PROGRAMME
The structure and responsibilities of the charitable organisations in the Member States audited are as 
follows:
1st level: ‘Designated’ by the national authorities organisations (e.g. Red Cross, Caritas, Federation of 
Food Banks, etc.). They act at national level as headquarters of lower level organisations for matters related to representation, contacts with the national authorities, coordination and supervision of the 
activities. They do not distribute aid to final recipients.
2nd level: Charitable organisations acting at regional/local level (e.g. dioceses Caritas, food banks, 
etc.). The majority of them belong to the network of the main organisations. They have the storage capacities and receive the foodstuffs and distribute them to lower level organisations and/or to final 
beneficiaries.
3rd level: Organisations operating locally and distributing the aid directly to the beneficiaries. There are 
up to several thousands in each Member State and their missions are wide and multiple. Very often these 
organisations belong to a network of the main charitable organisations, but also include independent 
organisations created at the initiative of local communities.
The Commission does not dispose of data on the number of the designated and other charitable 
organisations which participate in the EU programme. In the Member States audited they numbered 
around 40 000. Details are shown below:BOX 4
Type of charitable organisation Spain France Italy Poland
Designated organisations (1st level) 1474
Organisations at regional/departmental level 
(2nd level)52 250–300 249 89
Organisations of lower level distributing food 
to fi nal recipients (3rd level)approx. 6 000 approx. 9 000 14 973 9 366
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed11
 15.  Hence, charitable organisations play a key role in the implementation 
of the programme. While the programme contributes towards their 
administrative costs to a limited extent (1 % of the value of the prod-ucts made available)
12, the designated organisations bear most of  
their own administrative and operational costs for the reception,  
storage and distribution of the goods to the final beneficiaries.
 16.  By their nature, the charitable organisations involved in the scheme are 
difficult to be held accountable in normal administrative terms as  they are mainly staffed by volunteers and deal with an unstable and not easily monitored target population. These circumstances pose  
particular challenges for the administration of the scheme.
 17.  The quantities of food provided by the EU programme generally represent 
only one element of the totality of the food products distributed for 
free by the charitable organisations involved. However, for certain 
charitable organisations operating at local level, the EU programme 
is the only source of food for distribution to deprived persons. For 
the Member States and charitable organisations audited the follow-ing figures were given
13 (see Box 5 ).12 Charitable organisations also 
stressed that it would be necessary 
to increase the administration and 
logistics infrastructure (storage and distribution capacities and 
related manpower) for meeting 
the need to distribute increased 
quantities of products.
13 The Commission does not 
dispose of complete data for all 
Member States.
PARTICIPATION OF THE EU PROGRAMME TO THE TOTAL QUANTITIES DISTRIBUTED
Spain : In 2006 the quantities distributed by the designated organisation amounted to 60 048 tonnes, of 
which 32 660 (54 %) were from the EU programme and the remainder from other sources (food industry, wholesalers, markets, collect actions, etc.).
France : There is a national programme supplementary to the EU one. There is no exact data but it is 
estimated that the national programme represents about 6 % and the EU programme 30 % of the total 
quantities distributed.
Italy : There is no data on country level. For two organisations audited the EU programme covers almost 
100 % of the quantities distributed. For another organisation the EU participation is about 60 %.
Poland : There are no concrete global figures. EU programme covers approximately 60–70 % of food 
distributed by the two organisations audited (estimation).BOX 5
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed12
 18.  The audit objective was to assess the programme ‘European Union food 
aid for deprived persons’ with reference to the relationship between 
objectives, means and methods employed. In particular, the audit  examined whether the intended aims of the programme are still valid 
in the context of an evolving market and social situation. Furthermore 
the adequacy of the means made available and of the systems applied 
for measuring the programme’s impact on the beneficiaries was also 
assessed in terms of value, quantity and variety of products provided 
and distributed. Finally the audit examined the administrative and management procedures used for the implementation of the annual 
plans.
 19.  The main questions addressed in this report are the following:
Do the objectives of the programme remain valid and is the  (a) 
approach appropriate?
Are the means commensurate with the objectives sought and  (b) 
adequately implemented?
Are the procedures being applied as intended? (c) 
 20.  To answer these questions the audit work covered the data for meas-
uring the programme’s impact in relation to each of the objectives set, the selection and eligibility criteria for charitable organisations 
participating in the scheme and for the final beneficiaries, the imple-
mentation of the annual plans by all stakeholders involved and the 
mechanisms used for the distribution of the foodstuffs in terms of 
quantity, quality and variety. Finally the system for establishing the needs, the allocation of the financial resources to the Member States and the procurement procedures for the final products to be supplied to charitable organisations for distribution were examined.AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
Source : Charitable Organisations.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed13
 21.  The audit covered the management and monitoring of the programme at 
both the Commission and in selected Member States. The audit work 
focused on the analysis, documentation and testing of the procedures and systems applied for the management of the programme by the 
Commission, by the competent national authorities, and by some of 
the designated charitable organisations at national, regional and  
local level participating in the actual distribution of foodstuffs to  
deprived persons.
 22.  The audit was carried out in four Member States — Spain, France,  
Italy and Poland — accounting for more than 72 % of the annual  budgetary appropriations. The audit focused on the plans for the  years 2006–2008.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed14
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME
‘The Community has through its intervention stocks of various agricultural products the potential means 
to make a significant contribution towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens; it is in the Community interest, and in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy, to exploit this potential on a durable basis until the stocks have been run down to a normal level […].’BOX 6OBSERVATIONS
THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: 
DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?
THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES
 23.  The legal provisions14 set for the measure the twin objectives of making a 
significant contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived 
citizens and the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the  disposal of part of the intervention stocks (see Box 6 ).
 24.  The programme’s implementation responsibility has been given to the 
actors generally involved in the management of agricultural expendi-ture, namely the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Devel-opment within the Commission and, in the Member States, the paying agency dealing with agricultural payments, and responsible for man-aging the intervention stocks.14 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 
laying down general rules as 
incorporated in Regulation (EC) 
No 1234/2007.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed15
WHEN INTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK 
WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS TENUOUS
 25.  The current programme has been in application since 1987. The initial 
provisions favoured the financing of the programme using interven-
tion stocks in line with the objectives of the common agricultural  
policy ‘to run down the stocks to a normal level’15. However, the  
reform of the CAP in recent years, whereby intervention measures for certain products are being phased out, and the decrease of existing 
intervention stocks to zero, have considerably affected the imple-mentation of the programme: the majority of the products now have to be purchased directly on the market
16.
 26.  Nevertheless, a tenuous link is still maintained with agricultural expendi-
ture insofar as the products made available to deprived persons are 
still those derived from agricultural products eligible for interven-
tion storage. This complicates the management of the measure and 
restricts the choice of products to be distributed. Finally, the nature of 
the aid, i.e. a contribution to alleviate poverty, is difficult to reconcile 
with the general nature of EU agricultural expenditure, whereby the support is targeted at farmers and/or the farming industry and eligible 
beneficiaries are entitled to receive a specific amount of aid.
 27.  The issue of the appropriateness of treating the expenditure for the pro-
gramme as part of the Common Agricultural Policy has been raised in 
the Management Committee meetings. Certain Member States who 
do not participate in the EU food programme have voted against the 
approval of the annual plans in the recent years considering this aid incompatible with the CAP’s focus and type of financing
17.15 See Box 6.
16 For the annual plan 2008 only 
sugar was available in intervention 
and the rest of the products had to be mobilised on the market. 
A forecast published by DG AGRI 
in July 2007, ‘The Prospects For 
Agricultural Markets and Income 
in the European Union’, for the 
period 2007–2014, is that:
for cereals ‘public stocks would  —
largely disappear in the early 
projection period’,
sugar is ‘expected to reach  —
balance as from 2010’,
for butter ‘emptied intervention  —
stocks in the first semester 
of 2007 will remain empty until the end of 2014’ and
for skimmed milk powder (SMP)  —
‘the market is expected to 
remain balanced throughout 
the projection period with no necessity to offer products for 
intervention buying-in’.
17 Minutes of the meetings of 
the Management Committee for 
Cereals (adoption of the annual 
plan 2008):‘DE: finds that there is no longer 
any consistency between the 
Council Regulation and the 
Implementing Regulation;
NL, SE, UK: do not want a social measure to be financed by the CAP 
budget;
NL: likewise because they do 
not want a social measure to 
be financed by the Community budget.’
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed16
THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT
 28.  Although the contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived 
citizens was linked to the stabilisation of agricultural markets through 
the disposal of intervention stocks, recent developments mean that 
the social aim of the measure has become much more predominant. 
As early as 1998, the Commission published an evaluation of the Euro-
pean Community Food Programmes which concluded that the social aspects of the measure were regarded as a more important objective 
than that as an instrument of market regulation (see Box 7 ). Indeed, 
the evaluation considered that the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation was doubtful since, on the one hand in some cases a proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returned indirectly back to intervention and, on the other hand, the measure was considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus.
COMMISSION’S 1998 EVALUA TION (MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)
‘The social purpose of the measure is clearly set out in the regulations. […] its usefulness in the con-
text of persistent widespread poverty in Europe is attested by the charities […]. When the measure 
was introduced another, admittedly secondary, purpose was to help run down the Community’s huge 
and costly intervention stocks […]. The measure can therefore still be regarded as a market regulation 
instrument’.
‘The Member States […] are well able to make effective use of the resources […]. On the other hand, 
there is some doubt about the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation. […] in some 
cases, possibly a large proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returns indirectly 
to intervention’.
‘While there is no doubt that it [the aid] is an efficient instrument of social aid, it is considerably more 
expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus […]’.
‘[…] in view of Europe’s serious poverty problem and of the unquestionable usefulness of the aid to the 
needy, continuation of the measure should certainly be recommended and possibly even an increase in 
the financial resources devoted to it. […] The Council has made it clear […] that the social aspects were 
regarded as more important than the role of the measure as an instrument of market regulation.’BOX 7
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed17
 29.  Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, which consolidated Regulation (EEC) 
No 3730/87, also considers the scheme ‘an important social  
measure’18.
 30.  A similar perception of the social aim of the measure is shared by the 
managing authorities of the Member States visited during the audit, 
which expressed the importance of the social dimension of the pro-gramme being well coordinated at national level.
 31.  Furthermore, as recently as April 2006, the European Parliament adopted 
a declaration ‘on supplying approved charities working to implement 
the European food aid programme for the most deprived’. In its dec-laration, the European Parliament regarded the measure as a part  
of the aim of reducing poverty, and invited the Commission and the 
Council to maintain and increase the aid with certain implementing 
adaptations (see Box 8 ).
EP’S DECLARATION MAIN POINTS
recognise the fact that there are undernourished people in the European Union and acknowledge • 
the need to meet their food requirements,
place the European food aid programme on a permanent footing and provide a global multiannual • 
budget allocation,open the measure up to new sectors such as pork, poultry and eggs,
• 
include in the programme innovative measures to ensure the distribution of balanced food • 
rations,
regard food aid as part of the aim of reducing poverty,• 
modify the rules so as to allow:• 
for the stocks reserved for the programme to be build up, i.e. set aside for and allocated to the • 
most deprived,
for the bartering procedure to be extended,• 
for products that are not available as part of intervention stocks to be bought on the Community • 
market.BOX 818 Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, 
recital 18.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed18
COORDINATION WITH OTHER SOCIAL POLICY 
MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPROVED
 32.  The legislator clearly established that the food aid programme should be 
regarded as a contribution, albeit significant, towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens
19 (see Box 6 ). Hence, this contribution 
should be coordinated and create synergies with the other policies, schemes and actions set up at both Community and Member States levels to meet better the needs of the most deprived persons.
 33.  At the level of the Member States audited, the managing authorities are 
the paying agencies for agricultural expenditure. With the exception of France, in the Member States audited there was no evidence of  close cooperation between the paying agency and other key actors for social actions such as the ministries of social affairs. Such co operation 
is necessary for better understanding and meeting the needs of the 
charitable organisations and of the deprived persons.
THE MEANS AND METHODS EMPLOYED: ARE THE MEANS 
COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?
BETTER TARGETING OF RECIPIENTS NEEDED 
TO ACHIEVE ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION’
LOW IMPACT  OF THE EU AID
 34.  The large number of potential beneficiaries and the relatively low level 
of available resources mean that beneficiaries need to be targeted to allow the measure to have any significant impact on the target  population.
 35.  As shown in table in Annex II  the budgetary appropriations per poten-
tial beneficiary amounts to about six euro per person per year. On 
the other hand the Commission, in its impact assessment, indicates that in 2006 more than 13 million people in 15 Member States ben-
efited from the programme and estimates that the cost of a single 
meal offered by charities is at least two euro. This implies that the 
programme contributes to the distribution of a maximum of three  
meals per year for each potential deprived person, or an average of 
12 meals per year for each actual beneficiary of the aid.19 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed19
 36.  While the EU programme in certain Member States accounts for more 
than 50 % of the food distributed to deprived citizens (see Box 5 ),  
the Court considers that a programme which offers, as a maximum, the equivalent of one meal per month to its beneficiaries on average 
is unlikely to meet the objectives of the legislator, namely that of  
making a ‘significant contribution towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens’
20.
 37.  In this respect, it would ideally be necessary to improve selection criteria 
and or priorities amongst potential beneficiaries as recommended  
by the impact assessment21; otherwise the contribution of the pro-
gramme to the well-being of the most deprived persons will inevitably 
be negligible. It is important to recognise, however, that charitable organisations, by their very nature, may not be able or willing to  adopt restrictive distribution policies.
UNCLEAR  ELIGIBILITY  AND  SELECTION  CRITERIA
 38.  In order to maximise the impact of the aid it is necessary to define work-
able priorities, both in view of selecting the charitable organisations 
which will channel the aid, and regarding categories and/or groups 
of the population who will receive the food aid.
 39.  The auditors found that in practice Member States have often without 
formalised procedures designated a small number of organisations operating nationwide, in which lower level organisations participate. Precise data on the number of the designated charitable organisations with which the authorities of the Member States cooperate for the implementation of the annual plans are not available. The charitable organisations at regional level automatically participate in the EU  programme as being members of the main charitable organisations. They have certain independence in establishing the criteria they apply for accepting lower level organisations for the distribution of food aid.20 Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, 
recital 18.
21 Points 4 and 6.5 of 
Commission staff working 
document SEC(2008) 2436/2 
accompanying the Proposal for 
a Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 
on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Regulation 
(EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 
a common organisation of 
agricultural markets and on 
specific provisions for certain 
agricultural products (Single 
CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution to the most deprived 
persons in the Community 
(COM(2008) 563 final).
Source : Charitable Organisations.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed20
 40.  Furthermore, according to the legal provisions, the beneficiaries’ eligi-
bility criteria should be based on ‘recorded or recognised social and 
financial dependence’. Accordingly, national authorities should adopt such criteria or to approve criteria used by charitable organisations. 
Member States are also required to notify the Commission annually 
of the eligibility criteria to be met by recipients. The Court found  that no such precise eligibility criteria were fixed by the Member  States. The criteria communicated annually to the Commission
22 are 
rather a typology of the persons assisted rather than quantitative or 
qualitative selection criteria (see Box 9 ).
 41.  Finally the Court found that there were significant differences in the 
frequency of reception of the aid (some persons having occasional meals provided compared to people in social institutes or to families receiving food aid or parcels on a regular basis).22 Pursuant to Article 1(2) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.
EXAMPLES OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA USED BY CHARITABLE ORGANISATIONS
Economic criteria: homelessness, poverty, unemployment …• 
Social criteria: immigrants, elderly people, large families …• 
Health criteria: illnesses, handicapped.• BOX 9
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed21
THE VARIETY OF FOOD MADE AVAILABLE 
IS CONSTRAINED BY THE INTERVENTION STORAGE LINK, 
AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY
 42.  The distribution of the foodstuffs by the charitable organisations to 
deprived persons may take different forms depending on the spe-cific activities of the charitable organisation (meals offered in public canteens, meals offered in nurseries and hospices, packages of food 
delivered to individuals and families, etc.).
 43.  The origin of the measure and its link with the distribution of foodstuff 
historically available from Community stocks also led to rules gov-erning the programme which impose constraints on the variety of  final products that may be acquired and distributed to the deprived persons.
 44.  The legal provisions23 stipulate that the supply of products mobilised 
on the Community market must belong to the same product group as 
the product temporarily unavailable in the intervention stocks. Up to 
September 2007 products from intervention stocks had to represent 
at least 40 % of the net weight of the food product to be supplied. 
Given the fact that in the course of the years some products have no 
longer been taken into intervention (e.g. beef, olive oil), the choice 
of products available for distribution to deprived persons has become limited.
 45.  The Court found that several charitable organisations participating in 
the implementation of the programme considered it a priority to  
enlarge the variety of the products offered to allow the preparation 
of balanced meals24.23 Article 4(1)(b) and 4(2a) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.
24 In particular they expressed 
the need for food products such as oil, tomato pasta, meat, frozen 
vegetables.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed22
 46.  The auditors also found that a wide variety of systems and methodolo-
gies are used to distribute foodstuffs from the managing authorities 
to designated organisations, from there to lower level charitable  organisations and finally to deprived persons (see Box 10 ).
DISTRIBUTION MODALITIES
In Member States where more than one designated organisations are operating, the allocation of the 
foodstuffs among them is based on predetermined standard percentages applied and un-revised for 
many years (France, Poland). In Italy designated organisations are not involved and the distribution of 
the final products is made directly to regional level organisations on the basis on specified parameters (number of interventions and applications).
For the distribution of the food from the designated national organisations to the lower level organi-
sations again a multiplicity of systems and in some cases factors are used. In Spain the distribution is 
based on certain coefficients set by the designated organisation. In Poland the organisations visited apply their own systems. For example one organisation has set a quantitative target, which is 35 kg of 
food per person per year. In France each designated organisation applies its own system. For example 
one organisation allocates the resources to 79 second level organisations on the basis of a factor called 
‘coefficients K’ which is determined ‘according to certain criteria: population of the department, number of jobseekers, number of long-term jobseekers, number of recipients of minimum welfare income for the unemployed’. Another organisation distributes the food to 98 federations proportionally to the number of beneficiaries declared.
The distribution of the foodstuffs to the final recipients by the charitable organisations and the fre-
quency of deliveries are based on their own criteria and logistical capacities. In some cases charitable 
organisations suggest certain criteria. For example in Poland one organisation has proposed some 
standards for each delivery to an individual, e.g. milk at least 15 l per person and delivery, flour at least 5 kg per person and delivery.
In most of the cases the charitable organisations distribute whatever they have received on the basis of 
their own criteria and in some cases on the principle of equal treatment of the persons in need, i.e. the 
quantity of the available products is distributed in equal parts to each person adhered to the organisa-tion or requesting the aid.BOX 10
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed23
 47.  Specifically, in the entire distribution chain there are no common stand-
ards, guidelines or indications at Community or national level con-
cerning the quantity and the variety of products to be distributed per person. The Court found that the quantities distributed per person 
in each Member State and among the charitable organisations of the 
same Member State, differ considerably. Such a diverse approach  increases the risk of negligible impact and leads to unequal treat-ment between final recipients of the aid (see Box 11 ). Annex III  shows 
the products and quantities allocated by Member State and per final 
recipient for the annual plan 2005, for which data on final recipients are available.
EXAMPLES OF QUANTITIES OF PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED PER PERSON
Spain : Distribution statistics for the 2007 plan show that on average 49,88 kg of products per registered 
recipient were distributed; with a minimum of 28,24 kg/person in one food bank and a maximum of 
89,16 kg/person in another.
Italy : Two organisations active in the same area distributed the following quantities of pasta to their 
beneficiaries:BOX 11
Organisation 2006 2007
A 1,71 kg/person 9,68 kg/person
B 2,29 kg/person 14,44 kg/person
Poland : The annual average distribution per person (2006) was:
24,95 kg by one designated organisation;
12,59 kg by another organisation.
A third organisation distributed 6,72 kg per person in the region of Dolnoslaskie, while in the region of 
Lodzkie it distributed 78,03 kg per person.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed24
THE PROGRAMME’S ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION: 
ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?
SHORTCOMINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES
NO OPERATIONAL  SUB -OBJECTIVES
 48.  Member States and the Commission share the responsibility to ensure 
that the programme is effective. Article 27 of the Financial Regulation 
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/200225 provides among others that specific, 
measurable, achievable, relevant and timely objectives shall be set for all sectors of activity covered by the EU budget.
 49.  The Court found that the objectives stipulated by the governing Com-
munity regulations, which are essentially high-level global objec-tives, have not been further developed and detailed into workable, 
measurable targets or sub-objectives.
 50.  Given this vagueness in the objectives, it is not surprising that, not-
withstanding the legal obligation26, neither the Commission nor the 
Member States have set any performance indicators to monitor the achievement of objectives
27.
MANAGEMENT  INFORMATION  COMMUNICATED  TO THE COMMISSION
 51.  Community regulations require that Member States transmit to the Com-
mission a report on the implementation of the plan not later than 30 of June each year (n+1). It should provide important information on the implementation of the plan and its verification
28.25 OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
26 Article 27 of Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002, Financial 
Regulation, provides that 
achievement of objectives shall 
be monitored by performance 
indicators for each activity and 
information shall be provided 
by the spending authorities to the budgetary authority. Such 
information, as referred to in 
Article 33(2)(d), shall be provided 
annually and at the latest in the 
documents accompanying the 
preliminary draft budget.
27 In some Member States visited 
the opinion was expressed that 
the social objectives set by the 
Community regulations are more 
of a ‘philosophical nature’ than real measurable objectives.
28 The Report should indicate the 
amounts of products withdrawn 
from intervention stocks, the 
type, quantity and value of goods 
distributed, the transport and transfer costs and the number 
of recipients. The report should 
also specify the verification 
measures applied and the type 
and number of checks carried out, the results obtained and any 
cases of penalties imposed. It 
should also include the number of 
recipients over the course of the 
year (Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3149/92).
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed25
 52.  The Court examined the reports required to be sent by the Member States 
for the period under audit and found that reports are sometimes late 
or incomplete. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Commis-sion makes a proper analysis and use of them.
 53.  The auditors also found that the figures on final recipients provided 
in the report are in many cases estimations made by the charitable 
organisations and are not based on common standards or definitions of beneficiaries or criteria (recipients are recorded irrespectively of 
the frequency and the type and quantity of food received)
29.
ESTIMATION  OF BUDGETARY  APPROPRIATIONS  AND  ALLOCATION  
OF RESOURCES  BETWEEN  M EMBER  STATES
 54.  The Court analysed the procedure used by the Commission to establish 
the budgetary appropriations necessary for the implementation of 
the programme and the allocation of resources amongst Member  States.
 55.  The budgetary appropriations are allocated to the Member States based 
on two criteria:
the first is the needs communicated by the Member States plus (a) 
the administrative costs (1 %) and the transport costs (4 % and  4,5 % from 2008); and
the second is the population considered ‘at risk of poverty’, as a (b) 
percentage of the entire population of each Member State.
 56.  Taking into consideration both criteria the final allocations to the Mem-
ber States are adjusted to the available budgetary appropriations.  However, the second criterion does not necessarily result in the most effective use of the resources over the EU as a whole. Those classified under this category in a relatively high income country are likely to be better off than many people falling outside the classification in countries with low income per capita.29 In one Member State, the 
auditors also found errors 
in the number of recipients communicated by the charitable 
organisations.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed26
 57.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Regulation30 that Member States’ 
reports on the execution of the annual plans are taken into considera-
tion when allocating resources among the Member States, the Court found evidence that this had been done in only one case. Additionally, 
the criteria used to allocate resources do not consider elements of 
the population not included in the statistical definition, e.g. non-registered immigrants and refugees.
 58.  With regard to the annual needs notified to the Commission by the Mem-
ber States, in general they are estimations fixed at the higher level 
of the managing bodies, without necessarily consulting the charita-
ble organisations involved. This means that the resources requested 
are not based on real needs and rather reflect anticipated possible allocations.30 Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3149/92 stipulates that for 
the purposes of allocating the resources among Member States, 
the Commission shall take account 
of the best estimates of the 
number of most deprived persons 
in the Member States concerned 
and of how operations were 
carried out and the uses to which resources were put in previous 
financial years, on the basis in 
particular of the reports provided 
for in Article 10 of the same 
Regulation.
NEEDS AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
The needs are expressed in quantities of products in intervention stocks and their value is estimated 
by the Commission using the buying-in price.
The table below shows the needs expressed by the participating Member States in financial terms and 
the total financial resources made available by the Commission (administrative and transport cost 
included).
Needs of Member States compared to allocations:BOX 12
Year 2006 2007 2008
Number of participating Member States 15 18 19
Estimated needs (million euro) 307,2 338,7 313,9
Allocated fi  nancial resources (million euro) 259,4 258,9* 294,5**
Percentage 84 % 76,4 % 93,8 %
* Initial allocation.
** Before the increase of the allocation by 10 million euro decided in February 2008.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed27
 59.  The Court compared the needs notified by the Member States with the 
financial allocations made and also analysed (see Annex IV ) the quan-
tities of products in intervention stocks requested, as needed for the implementation of the plans, and those allocated by the Commission. 
The amounts allocated in the last 3 years were lower than requested 
(see Box 12 ). In relation to products and quantities, the Member  
States very often did not obtain what they demanded. In addition  certain Member States were allocated products they initially did not request (e.g. butter and sugar in 2006 and 2007) and were not allo-
cated products they did request (e.g. rice and butter in 2007). This calls into question the effectiveness of the programme in meeting  
expected needs.
TENDERING PROCEDURES NEED IMPROVING 
AND HARMONISING
 60.  For the procurement of the final products to be distributed, the compe-
tent national authorities are required to issue an invitation to tender. 
This procedure is valid for the two main types of supplies necessary for the implementation of the plan:
products withdrawn from intervention stocks in unprocessed form (a) 
or after packaging and/or processing; and
final products mobilised on the market and paid for either in the (b) 
form of products withdrawn from intervention stocks (bartering) or in monetary value.
 61.  The Court analysed the procedures applied for the procurement of the 
final products to be supplied to charitable organisations for dis-
tribution in the Member States audited and examined a sample of  
tenders organised in the last years both for using products available 
in the intervention stocks and for direct purchase of products on the market.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed28
INCONSISTENT  APPLICATION  OF LEGAL  BASE  AT M EMBER  STATE  LEVEL
 62.  Certain regulatory requirements concerning the tendering procedures 
to be applied are set in Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 (e.g. type of  
products to be mobilised on the market, content of the invitation to 
tender, restrictions, etc.). The same Regulation requires that invita-tions to tender shall guarantee equal access to all operators estab-lished in the Community.
 63.  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council31 
establishes the coordination of procedures for the award of public 
works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. In addition specific Community Regulations are in force for the sale 
of products held by intervention agencies
32. However, neither Regula-
tion (EEC) No 3730/87 nor Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92, as regularly 
amended, make any precise reference to the legal basis for the tenders 
to be organised by the Member States.
 64.  The Court’s auditors found that tendering procedures are organised by 
all Member States audited. Member States carry out the tendering  
procedures on the basis of the national legislation under conditions 
which do not always guarantee the transparency and equal access of operators at EU level.
IT IS ECONOMICALLY  MORE  ADVANTAGEOUS  TO BUY  THE PRODUCTS  
ON THE MARKET  THAN  TO USE INTERVENTION  STOCKS  AS A PROXY  FOR  PAYMENTS
 65.  The Court found that, in general, more advantageous prices are obtained 
in cases of direct purchase of products on the market, compared  
with using intervention stocks as a proxy for payment for the same 
products at the same time. For example, in 2007 in Poland, under the 
same tender procedure companies were invited to submit their bids 
for delivery of a product (a) in exchange for butter from interven-tion stocks and (b) via direct purchase. The comparison of the results 
shows that the price for the direct purchase was lower by about  
10 %
33.31 OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.
32 E.g. Commission Regulation 
(EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 
laying down the procedures and 
conditions for the sale of cereals 
held by intervention agencies (OJ L 191, 31.7.1993, p. 76).
33 The ratio for exchange 
transactions reached 85 %, while 
the ratio for direct purchase is estimated at 94 %.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed29
 66.  The Commission has detailed information on the market price of prod-
ucts in the context of the intervention mechanism34. However, in the 
context of the food programme for deprived persons the governing rules
35 do not foresee that the competent services of the Commis-
sion are informed about the prices and conditions achieved by the 
tendering procedures taking place in the Member States. As a result 
the Commission has no assurance that the most advantageous terms have been obtained.
TENDER  PROCEDURES  APPLIED  BY THE M EMBER  STATES  DIFFER  CONSIDERABLY
 67.  The Court found that national rather than EU tendering procedures are 
applied, with the result that they differ considerably between Mem-
ber States and even within the same Member State, where more than 
one service is responsible for organising the tenders (Italy, France). 
In certain instances EU provisions are not respected. The differences 
concern important points of the tendering procedure such as the pub-
licity given to the invitations to tender, the deadline for the submis-
sion of the offers, the guarantee lodged for the participation of the tenderers, the minimum number of participants and the evaluation 
methods and criteria used for awarding the contract (see Box 13 ).34 The Commission follows and 
analyses market prices for a 
number of products in the context of adopting the invitation to 
tender procedures for the sale 
of agricultural products held 
by intervention agencies and 
the fixing of the minimum sale 
prices to be adopted by the 
corresponding management committee. Market prices are also 
published by Eurostat regularly.
35 The obligation of the Member 
States to send the Commission the models of the invitations to 
tender (Article 4(4) of Regulation 
(EEC) No 3149/92) was abolished 
by Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1127/2007 (OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, 
p. 18).
DIFFERENCES IN TENDER PROCEDURES AND CONDITIONS  
BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AUDITEDBOX 13
36 France: Paying Agency 1: ONIEP (Office National Interprofessionnel de l’Élevage et de ses 
Productions); Paying Agency 2: ONIGC (Office National Interprofessionnel des Grandes Cultures).
37 Italy: Paying Agency 1: AGEA (Agencia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura); 
Paying Agency 2: Ente Nazionale Risi.Spain France36Italy37Poland
Publication in OJ No YesPA1: Yes
PA2: NoNo
Submission deadline (days) 15PA1: 22
PA2: 45PA1: 8–19
PA2: 1020
Participation guarantee 2 %PA1: 5 %
PA2: 5 euro/tonnePA1: 10 %
PA2: 15 euro/tonne50 000 PLN
(14 200 euro)
Minimum number of participants No No Yes (2) No
Number of tenderers 1–5PA1: 6–7
PA2: 3–42–4 1–9
Evaluation of prices vs. market NoPA1: No
PA2: YesAcceptable prices/
quantities are 
indicated in the 
invitation to tenderNo
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed30
 68.  The auditors found weaknesses in the tender procedures examined, such 
as limited publicity of the tender invitations, low number of par-
ticipants — which in some cases was just one — short time given  between publication and the closing date for the submission of offer. 
Additionally, the evaluation of the offers and the award of contracts 
are based principally on comparative data of the offers received, with 
no systematic comparison with other sources of information such as market prices.
 69.  As such, the processes followed do not ensure the openness of the ten-
ders, the broadest competition and that the best conditions and prices 
are obtained. An analysis of the tenders examined in certain Member 
States has shown that the contracts for several products were awarded to a limited number of companies over several years.
 70.  The abovementioned examples illustrate the risk that the most advan-
tageous conditions are not achieved, particularly when bartering  
arrangements are applied. In such cases, two constraining factors  apply:
the nature of the bartering arrangements limit the number of  (a) 
parties potentially interested in participating; and
the evaluation of the offers is difficult insofar as the paying agency (b) 
cannot easily determine the expected yields which could be con-sidered acceptable.
REFORM PROPOSAL: A RECENT COMMISSION INITIATIVE 
AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMME
 71.  A detailed analysis of the scheme was undertaken by the Commission 
starting in February 2008 for the preparation of a proposal for the 
reform of the programme. An inter-service steering group was set up, 
whereby 17 directorates-general were invited to participate, and a broad consultation with the Member States, the charitable organisa-
tions, academic experts in the field and a public online survey took 
place.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed31
 72.  As a result the Commission adopted in September 2008 a proposal for 
the amendment of the Council Regulation38 and published an impact 
assessment report on the scheme. This is expected to lead to a new legal framework for the 2010 programme.
 73.  The main elements of the Commission proposals are:
two sources of supply: intervention stocks or products directly  (a) 
purchased from the market, with priority given to the use of suit-
able intervention stocks;
wider variety of foods to be distributed: the products distrib- (b) 
uted would no longer be limited to those for which intervention applies;
long-term perspective: in order to enhance its efficiency, the Com- (c) 
munity food distribution plan would be established for a three  
year period;
clearer priorities: Member States would base their aid requests on (d) 
national food distribution programmes, setting out their objec-
tives and priorities;
co-financing: the introduction of co-financing would underpin the (e) 
cohesion dimension of the scheme, ensure proper planning and reinforce synergies between the various actors;
reinforcing monitoring and reporting: reporting obligations at  (f) 
various levels would be increased.
 74.  The Court recognises the benefit of these Commission proposals, some 
of which, if implemented, would help to remedy certain weaknesses 
identified by this audit such as the need for better targeting the EU 
aid, the inclusion of the programme in a broader social policy, the 
enlargement of the variety of products to be distributed and the  
need for improving management and administrative systems, espe-
cially tendering procedures. However, the Court emphasises that the reform of most of the markets under the CAP and the declining level 
of the intervention stocks in recent years imply that there is a need 
to reflect on the opportunity of continuing to finance this measure 
through CAP expenditure
39.38 Proposal for a Council 
Regulation COM(2008) 563/3.
39 CAP rules and especially those 
for the market support measures 
imply certain difficulties already 
identified by the Commission 
like multiannual planning, which 
is hardly compatible with EAGF 
financing, and the impossibility of transferring non-used 
appropriations to the following 
years.
Source : Charitable Organisations.
Source : Charitable Organisations.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed32
 75.  In this respect the Court also wishes to draw atten-
tion to the fact that the programme as implemented 
does not ‘give’ any right of the deprived persons  to EU aid. This is not in line with the support pro-
vided traditionally by the CAP to the agricultural  
community. Furthermore, the fact that market pur-
chases would make no distinction between domestic and imported products further weakens the effect  of the programme in terms of market intervention, as a measure directly supporting the purchase of  
imported products is not in line with the objectives 
of the CAP.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed33
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN 
VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?
THE PREDOMINANTLY SOCIAL OBJECTIVE REMAINS 
VALID, ALTHOUGH THE LINK WITH INTERVENTION STOCKS AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE HAS BECOME TENUOUS, …
 76.  Food aid for deprived persons was first introduced in 1987 as a reaction 
to conditions faced by deprived persons during a particularly harsh 
winter. Although it had the twin objectives of making a ‘significant’ 
contribution to the well-being of the most deprived citizens and the 
stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal of part of 
the substantial intervention stocks, its primary objective was consid-
ered to be a social measure. This was acknowledged in the evaluation of the measure published by the Commission in 1998. The measure 
was considered appropriate for implementation ‘on a durable basis 
until the stocks have been run down to a normal level’.
 77.  The budgetary authorities consider that there is still a need for the aid 
as a social measure. In effect, it is estimated that some 16 % of the 
population of the Union accounting for some 80 million citizens fall 
into the definition of deprived persons used by the Commission. A European Parliament declaration in 2006 called for maintaining and increasing the aid as part of the efforts to reduce poverty.
 78.  The Commission’s reform proposal of September 2008 intends to improve 
the implementation and sound financial management of the pro-gramme and contains elements, which, if implemented, will remedy 
certain weaknesses identified by this report. However, the reform  
proposes to continue using agricultural funds for a measure, which is 
not targeted to farmers or to the farming community and with several 
characteristics such as multiannuality and the non-compulsory nature of support to deprived persons, which are not compatible with the 
CAP and especially EAGF financing.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed34
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Commission should consider whether it is appropriate to  
continue financing such a measure from the Common Agricultural 
Policy.
… AND INTEGRATION WITH SOCIAL POLICIES 
AND COORDINATION WITH SIMILAR MEASURES WOULD ENHANCE THE APPROACH
 79.  In general the programme has operated with insufficient coordination 
and cooperation with other key actors for social actions in the Mem-ber States. Such cooperation is necessary for better understanding 
and meeting the needs of the deprived persons and the charitable 
organisations implementing the programme.
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Commission should encourage Member States to take the  ne cessary steps to embed the programme in the social policy frame-
work and improve coordination and cooperation with other key  
actors for social actions in order to increase the synergy between 
bodies experienced in managing such programmes.
ARE THE MEANS COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES 
SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?
PRIORITIES AND TARGETING OF THE RECIPIENTS 
WOULD INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME, …
 80.  The measure was introduced primarily to alleviate the difficult situation 
of the most deprived persons, it was not designed to eliminate all food 
poverty. The impact of the scheme is limited in global terms since it 
offers the equivalent of one meal per month to its beneficiaries.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed35
 81.  There are no priorities established within the category of deprived per-
sons to specifically target the aid. Moreover, the charitable organisa-
tions that manage the programme at operational level, mostly staffed by volunteers, address a target group which is not sufficiently stable 
to facilitate full accountability for the aid received.
RECOMMENDATION 3
In order to increase the impact of the measure, the Commission  should define workable priorities to select the recipients and inter-
mediaries of the aid, taking due account of the specificities of  
delivery mechanisms involving voluntary bodies and volatile target 
groups to which generally accepted administrative and control  mechanisms are difficult to apply.
…THE VARIETY OF PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED 
IS CONSTRAINED BY THE PROGRAMME’S LINK TO PRODUCTS ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC STORAGE MEASURES, …
 82.  Legal provisions allow the purchase of food products on the Community 
market in case intervention stocks are temporarily not available for free distribution to deprived persons. However, food thus purchased 
on the market must belong to the same product group as the one in intervention stocks, which limits the choice of products available for distribution.
RECOMMENDATION 4
The regulatory restriction of foods for distribution to products  eligible for intervention storage should be reconsidered in order to increase the diversity, complementarity and nutritional value 
of the food provided.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed36
… AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY
 83.  There is a wide variety of systems applied in the distribution chain from 
the managing authorities to charitable organisations and to deprived 
persons. There are no common standards, guidelines at EU or national level concerning the quantity and variety of products to be distribu–ted per person. This increases the risk of low impact which may lead 
to an unequal treatment of the recipients of the aid.
RECOMMENDATION 5
In order to increase the impact of the aid, and to ensure a more equal treatment of recipients, the Commission should consider  introducing a level of standardisation consistent with the charac-
teristics of the charitable organisations and of the target group.
ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?
MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PROCEDURES 
NEED TO BE IMPROVED, …
 84.  The overall objectives of the programme have not been translated into 
specific, measurable and achievable targets or sub-objectives either by the Commission or the Member States. As the implementation  reports of the Member States have, in several cases, been incomplete or contained inconsistent data, the management information avail-able to the Commission on the progress towards the programme’s  overall objectives is not sufficiently reliable.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed37
RECOMMENDATION 6
The Commission should encourage Member States to develop spe-
cific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives for the 
implementation of the programme as well as to define performance 
indicators to monitor the achievement of objectives. Furthermore, the Commission should review the reporting system of the scheme in order to ensure that accurate and timely information on the  
target group and on implementation is available.
… AND TENDERING PROCEDURES 
NEED IMPROVING AND HARMONISING
 85.  Considerably different tendering procedures are applied in different 
Member States, which do not guarantee equal access to all EU opera-
tors and do not ensure the broadest competition nor that the best 
conditions and prices are obtained. Furthermore, bartering arrange-
ments using intervention stocks are inappropriate and not always  cost-effective.
RECOMMENDATION 7
In order to increase the openness of competition and to ensure that the best prices on the market are achieved, the Commission should better define the legal basis as well as implementing rules for the procurement of food products for deprived persons. In addition, 
the bartering arrangements should be discontinued. Considera-
tion should be given to the disposal of intervention stocks on the market and the resultant proceeds to be used as assigned revenue 
to purchase the required final products.
  This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 14 May 2009.
For the Court of Auditors
For  the  Court  of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed38
POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY1ANNEX I
Member State (MS)Total 
population 
(million)Population 
at risk 
of poverty
( %)Population at 
risk of poverty 
(million)Participating 
MS Population 
at risk 
of poverty 
(million)Percentage 
of budget
Belgium 10,511 15 % 1,577 1,577 3,00 %
Bulgaria 7,719 15 % 1,158 1,158 2,20 %Czech Republic 10,251 10 % 1,025 1,025 1,95 %Denmark 5,427 12 % 0,651Germany 82,438 13 % 10,717Estonia 1,345 18 % 0,242 0,242 0,46 %Ireland 4,209 20 % 0,842 0,842 1,60 %Greece 11,125 20 % 2,225 2,225 4,23 %Spain 43,758 20 % 8,752 8,752 16,63 %
France 62,886 13 % 8,175 8,175 15,53 %
Italy 58,752 19 % 11,163 11,163 21,21 %Cyprus 0,766 16 % 0,123Latvia 2,295 19 % 0,436 0,436 0,83 %Lithuania 3,403 21 % 0,715 0,715 1,36 %Luxembourg 0,460 13 % 0,060 0,060 0,11 %Hungary 10,077 13 % 1,310 1,310 2,49 %Malta 0,404 15 % 0,061 0,061 0,12 %Netherlands 16,334 11 % 1,797Austria 8,266 12 % 0,992Poland 38,157 21 % 8,013 8,013 15,23 %Portugal 10,570 20 % 2,114 2,114 4,02 %Romania 21,610 18 % 3,890 3,890 7,39 %
Slovenia 2,003 12 % 0,240 0,240 0,46 %
Slovakia 5,389 13 % 0,701Finland 5,256 12 % 0,631 0,631 1,20 %Sweden 9,048 9 % 0,814United Kingdom 60,393 18 % 10,871
TOTAL 492,852 16 % 79,292 52,627 100,00 %
1 Eurostat definition: Rate of risk of poverty (threshold: 60 % of median equivalent income after social transfers).
Source : Eurostat, July 2006.
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed39
BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS AND ALLOCATION AMONG THE MEMBER STATESANNEX II
Budget item 05 02 04 012005
(euro)2006
(euro)Increase
2005/20062007
(euro)Increase
2006/20072008
(euro)Increase
2007/2008
Budgetary appropriations 216 000 000 264 000 000 22,2 % 274 000 000 3,8 % 307 000 000 12,0 %
Member StateAllocation
2005
(euro)Allocation
2006
(euro)Increase
2005/2006Allocation
2007
(euro)Increase
2006/2007Allocation
2008
(euro)Increase
2007/2008Percentage 
of 2008 
allocation
Belgium 3 047 791 3 064 940 0,6 % 5 817 428 89,8 % 8 461 691 45,5 % 2,8 %
Bulgaria 7 007 310 2,3 %
Czech Republic 155 443 0,1 %
Estonia 324 813 192 388 -40,8 % 0,1 %
Ireland 355 874 217 997 -38,7 % 155 965 -28,5 % 0,1 %Greece 5 704 637 7 127 822 24,9 % 6 689 132 -6,2 % 13 228 830 97,8 % 4,3 %Spain 42 544 686 53 793 470 26,4 % 50 340 744 -6,4 % 50 419 083 0,2 % 16,5 %France 48 620 337 48 059 949 -1,2 % 49 940 164 3,9 % 50 982 533 2,1 % 16,7 %Italy 60 294 489 73 538 420 22,0 % 70 764 888 -3,8 % 69 614 288 -1,6 % 22,8 %Latvia 2 096 236 18 446 -99,1 % 153 910 734,4 % 0,1 %Lithuania 2 489 508 3 273 261 31,5 % 4 456 991 36,2 % 1,5 %Luxembourg 68 537 34 959 -49,0 % 80 707 130,9 % 81 091 0,5 % 0,0 %Hungary 6 764 115 7 896 638 16,7 % 8 169 224 3,5 % 2,7 %Malta 347 642 401 030 15,4 % 384 898 -4,0 % 378 242 -1,7 % 0,1 %Poland 35 504 167 43 408 602 22,3 % 42 884 522 -1,2 % 49 971 042 16,5 % 16,4 %Portugal 12 527 718 13 306 532 6,2 % 14 904 058 12,0 % 13 182 946 -11,5 % 4,3 %
Romania 16 649 889 24 258 046 45,7 % 8,0 %
Slovenia 1 334 827 1 929 341 44,5 % 1 499 216 -22,3 % 0,5 %Finland 2 825 645 3 637 860 28,7 % 2 709 509 -25,5 % 2 741 323 1,2 % 0,9 %TOTAL 211 485 649 259 414 144 22,7 % 274 826 435 5,9 % 305 109 562 11,0 % 100,0 %Population at risk of poverty 
(million)40,61 42,29 47,96 52,63
Appropriations per person
at risk of poverty (euro/person)5,32 6,24 5,73 5,83
Source : Commission’s Regulations (as amended).
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed40
PRODUCTS ALLOCATED AND FINAL RECIPIENTS
ANNUAL PLAN 2005ANNEX III
Products allocated (tonnes)
Member
StateRecipients
(million)Cereals Rice ButterMilk 
powderTotal
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Belgium 0,221 6 000 3 500 318 410 10 228
Greece n/a 6 972 4 346 2 087 13 405
Spain 0,941 68 721 29 452 9 547 107 720
France 2,509 60 905 31 412 18 143 110 460
Italy 2,300 98 153 22 575 14 446 135 174
Malta n/a 1 383 553 1 936
Poland 3,594 17 758 26 835 6 772 3 749 55 114
Portugal 0,485 8 588 14 708 2 594 480 26 370
Finland 0,360 15 000 600 15 600
TOTAL 10,410 283 480 133 381 33 677 25 469 476 007
Products allocated per recipient (kg)
Member
StateRecipients
(million)Cereals Rice ButterMilk 
powderTotal
(1) (2)/(1) (3)/(1) (4)/(1) (5)/(1) (6)/(1)
Belgium 0,221 27,15 15,84 1,44 1,86 46,28
Greece n/aSpain 0,941 73,03 31,30 10,15 0,00 114,47
France 2,509 24,27 12,52 0,00 7,23 44,03
Italy 2,300 42,68 9,82 6,28 0,00 58,77
Malta n/a
Poland 3,594 4,94 7,47 1,88 1,04 15,34
Portugal 0,485 17,71 30,33 5,35 0,99 54,37
Finland 0,360 41,67 0,00 0,00 1,67 43,33
TOTAL 10,410 27,23 12,81 3,24 2,45 45,73
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed41
NEEDS COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION’S  
ALLOCATION OF INTERVENTION STOCKSANNEX IV
Plan 2006 (including amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 153/2006)
(in tonnes)
Member State Cereals Rice Butter Sugar
Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation
(a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a)
Belgium 9 000 12 121 135 % 2 800 2 800 100 % 300 450 150 %
Ireland 120 120 100 %
Greece 35 000 0 % 5 000 7 500 150 % 3 250 0 %Spain 70 000 73 726 105 % 25 000 28 000 112 % 15 000 13 560 90 % 2 000France 68 959 75 851 110 % 55 129 55 000 100 % 10 564Italy 100 000 115 253 115 % 15 000 20 000 133 % 16 000 6 833 43 % 3 500Latvia 35 000 19 706 56 %Lithuania 16 000 16 000 100 % 5 000 5 000 100 %Hungary 100 000 63 587 64 %Malta 2 500 1 877 75 % 1 000 600 60 %Poland 80 000 85 608 107 % 30 000 20 000 67 % 7 600 7 230 95 % 4 847Portugal 20 000 17 287 86 % 17 600 14 000 80 % 5 000 2 743 55 % 1 700Slovenia 1 350 1 262 93 % 540 600 111 % 135 0 % 270 300 111 %Finland 18 500 18 500 100 % 500
TOTAL 556 309 500 778 90 % 157 069 153 500 98 % 47 405 41 500 88 % 270 12 847 4 758 %
Other products declared and not allocated:
Olive oil (Portugal 4 000 tonnes).Beef (Italy 5 000 tonnes, Malta 60 tonnes, Portugal 1 500 tonnes, Slovenia 270 tonnes and Finland 1 000 tonnes).Skimmed powder milk (Belgium 400 tonnes, France 18 302 tonnes, Luxembourg 18 tonnes, Malta 100 tonnes, Poland 4 750 tonnes, Portugal 1 500 tonnes, Slovenia 135 tonnes and Finland 500 tonnes).
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed42Plan 2007 (including amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2007)
(in tonnes)
Member State Cereals Rice Butter Sugar
Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation
(a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a)
Belgium 12 000 12 000 100 % 2 800 0 % 1 115 0 % 2 000 2 000 100 %Czech Republic 270 0 % 26 0 % 50 0 %Estonia 3 000 3 000 100 % 2 0 % 2 0 %Ireland 80 80 100 %
Greece 11 760 30 000 2 755 9 %Spain 100 000 110 000 110 % 17 000 0 % 15 000 12 000 80 % 5 000 6 443 129 %France 66 330 82 641 125 % 51 940 23 641 46 % 11 700 6 500 56 % 3 338 3 338 100 %Italy 100 000 122 465 122 % 15 000 20 000 133 % 25 000 3 570 14 % 6 000 6 847 114 %Latvia 3 280 173 5 %Lithuania 12 000 12 000 100 % 5 000 0 % 3 000 2 760 92 %Hungary 52 000 52 000 100 % 900 900 100 %
Malta 2 500 1 550 62 % 1 000 0 %
Poland 100 000 120 433 120 % 20 000 0 % 13 000 2 400 18 % 15 000 11 522 77 %Portugal 22 000 20 000 91 % 17 500 14 000 80 % 5 000 3 160 63 % 2 500 1 435 57 %
Romanianot 
defi ned96 712not 
defi ned11 986
Slovenia 9 000 3 610 40 % 3 000 0 % 1 500 653 44 %
Finland 16 500 14 651 89 % 422 500 0 %
TOTAL 498 880 662 995 133 % 163 242 60 396 37 % 70 923 28 132 40 % 39 788 47 884 120 %
Other products declared and not allocated:
Beef (Italy 5 000 tonnes, Malta 60 tonnes, Portugal 1 500 tonnes and Finland 1 000 tonnes).Skimmed powder milk (Czech Rep. 10 tonnes, Greece 3 514 tonnes, Hungary 800 tonnes, Malta 100 tonnes, Portugal 2 000 tonnes,Slovenia 800 tonnes and Finland 500 tonnes).ANNEX IV
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed43Plan 2008 (including amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 182/2008)
(in tonnes)
Member State Cereals Rice Butter Sugar
Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation Needs Allocation
(a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a) (a) (b) (b)/(a)
Belgium 16 000 0 % 2 000 0 % 3 000 4 154 138 %
Bulgaria 20 000 0 % 12 000 0 % 6 500 6 385 98 %
Czech Republic 360 0 % 24 0 % 67 67 100 %Estonia 1 800 0 %Greece 25 000 0 %Spain 110 000 0 % 12 000 0 % 13 000 0 % 6 500 6 500 100 %France 97 044 0 % 39 280 0 % 13 966 0 % 4 193 3 718 89 %Italy 120 000 0 % 25 000 0 % 7 000 7 000 100 %Latvia 1 440 0 %Lithuania 25 000 0 % 7 000 0 % 5 000 2 889 58 %Hungary 60 000 0 % 1 800 1 620 90 %Malta 2 500 0 % 500 0 % 1 800 397 22 %Poland 200 000 0 % 11 000 0 % 18 130 15 552 86 %Portugal 22 000 0 % 17 500 0 % 5 000 0 % 3 000 1 707 57 %Romania 200 000 0 % 20 000 15 898 79 %Slovenia 2 000 0 % 800 0 % 900 806 90 %
Finland 16 000 0 %
TOTAL 919 144 0 0 % 91 080 0 0 % 67 990 0 0 % 77 890 66 693 86 %
Other products declared and not allocated:
Olive oil (Greece 2 285 tonnes).Beef (Belgium 664 tonnes and Malta 60 tonnes).Skimmed powder milk (Belgium 1 603 tonnes, Czech Rep. 13 tonnes, Greece 3 435 tonnes, Lithuania 700 tonnes, Luxembourg 44 tonne s, 
Hungary 1 000 tonnes, Malta 200 tonnes, Portugal 2 000 tonnes, Slovenia 500 tonnes and Finland 500 tonnes).ANNEX IV
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed44
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II.
Since the beginning, the Most Deprived  
programme was fully embedded within the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The two objectives of the programme, as the Court recalls, were already at that time to contrib-
ute to food security of the most deprived  
among the citizens of the Union, and to  ensure an alternative outlet for the interven-
tion stocks. Both aims find their justification 
in the Treaty and are in line with the objec-
tives of the CAP enumerated in Article 33.
Over the years the food distribution plans  
implemented under the scheme have suc-cessfully contributed to achieve both  objectives.
III.
The state of EU public stocks varies with  market developments and price levels. While 
intervention has been extensively reformed, 
it remains operational for a whole range of 
main agricultural products including cer-
eals, skimmed milk powder and butter. The 
decline in intervention stocks over the last 
few years has stopped in 2008. Indeed, inter-vention stocks for certain products such as 
cereals and butter are currently buildingup again.
V.
For the last four years, as intervention stocks have decreased, the annual plans imple-
menting this programme had to rely to a  
larger extent on market purchases. However, this trend of the last years has been stopped recently and intervention stocks for certain products are increasing again.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed45
A large majority of Member States supports 
the measure, as well as the European Parlia-
ment which has expressed its wish that the programme remains financed by the EAGF  
budget
1.
VI.
The operational effectiveness of the scheme is not to be judged on the number of meals 
offered per beneficiary but on the extent to which it provides a stable outlet for prod-
ucts from intervention stocks and reliable  
source of foodstuffs for charities involved  
in the assistance to most deprived people. 
Against this background, the programme has proven successful as shown by its share in total food aid being distributed (please see Box 5 of the Court’s report). All the stake-
holders recognise that the impact of the  
scheme is substantial.
Furthermore, the measure has had a powerful 
leverage effect in allowing the development 
of networks of charities and facilitating the 
coordination with public authorities.
VII.
The Commission considers that globally the system is satisfactorily managed although  some further improvements are possible. The Commission has tabled a proposal to reform the programme in 2008 which addresses sev-
eral suggestions of the Court
2.
1 European Parliament legislative resolution of 
26 March 2009 (TA/2009/188) on the proposal for 
a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 
1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural 
policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 
a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 
(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 
to the most deprived persons in the Community 
(COM(2008)0563 — C6-0353/2008 — 2008/0183(CNS)).
2 Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets 
and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 
(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 
to the most deprived persons in the Community (COM(2008) 563 final).The Commission has already modified the  
methodology to calculate Member States’  
allocations in the 2009 annual plan to take into account the relative level of wealth  
(Gross National Income expressed in Power 
Purchasing Standard per capita), with the  unanimous support of participating Member States.
As regards the tendering procedures, Com-
mission audits conclude to the compliance of the procedures applied by the Member  States with the EU Public Procurement Direc-tive
3. The Impact Assessment accompanying 
the 2008 reform proposal4 contains never-
theless some suggestions to further enhance the publicity of tenders and then increase  
participation which would be implemented 
once the proposal is adopted.
The Commission is ready to re-examine cur-
rent bartering arrangements in the context of the new implementing rules following the 
adoption of the new Council Regulation cur-
rently under discussion.
3 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination 
of procedures for the award of public works contracts, 
public supply contracts and public service contracts 
(OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114).
4 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying 
the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending 
Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the 
common agricultural policy and (EC) No 1234/2007 
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 
(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 
to the most deprived persons in the Community — 
Impact Assessment SEC(2008) 2436/2.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed46
INTRODUCTION
5.
Total numbers of people ‘at risk of poverty’ 
do not constitute the target group of this  
measure. According to Article 2(1) of Regula-tion (EC) No 3149/92, the category of popu-lation ‘at risk of poverty’ is the statistical  
indicator used in the calculation of the Mem-
ber States’ allocations since it is considered the best available estimate of the number of 
most deprived persons. The notion of popu-
lation ‘at risk of poverty’ is based on criteria 
agreed in December 2001 at the European  
Council meeting in Laeken.
For the 2009 annual plan, the Commission  
has already used a new method combining 
relative (GNI — Gross National Income — per 
capita expressed in Purchase Power Stand-
ards) and absolute (population at risk of  
poverty) indicators.
The population actually targeted by this  
scheme is defined by Member States’ admin-
istrations in close cooperation with charities, 
and corresponds to individuals and families in need of food assistance.
7.
One of the aims of the programme is to  secure a reliable and stable source of food for the charities engaged in providing food 
assistance to the most deprived persons of the Community. In this respect, Box 5 of the 
Court’s report provides clear evidence of the 
programme’s significant impact since it pro-
vides between 30 and 70 % of the total food distributed in the EU to the most deprived people.In addition, the programme has a leverage 
effect on the development of actions by pri-
vate bodies (charities) and public authori-ties (at national and local level), as shown in the Impact Assessment accompanying the 
2008 Commission proposal to reform the  
programme.
The Commission considers that a more rele-
vant indicator is the amount in euros per  
real aid recipient, calculated on the basis of 
information contained in national reports on implementation.
9.
The Commission considers the increasing  
number of Member States’ participating  
in the programme as a proof of its added  
value.
11.
Providing an outlet for intervention stocks 
is a major objective of the scheme.
Nowadays, most of the intervention prod-
ucts are exchanged against food and less  and less processed for distribution to the  most deprived. Call for tender procedures  are not influenced by the fact that inter-vention products are either processed or  
exchanged, but this factor affects the bur-den of control.
The trend towards extensively processed  
foods is the result of NGO demands to be  supplied with foodstuffs better suited to the living conditions of deprived people and in order to distribute a wider range of products securing a more balanced diet.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed47
12.
The situation of public stocks changes every 
year on the basis of market conditions, in  
particular price levels. While intervention  has been extensively reformed over the last few years, it remains operational for a whole 
range of main agricultural products includ-
ing cereals, skimmed milk powder and but-ter, and stocks can rapidly build up again  
in a situation of low producer prices. In this 
sense, it is very likely that the 2010 annual 
plan relies more extensively on intervention 
stocks than the two previous years.
17.
The EU programme tends to account for a  
very substantial share of total food distrib-
uted by every organisation although the  
situation varies greatly across charities. An 
analysis of the importance of the scheme  and of its contribution towards the well-
being of the most deprived can be found in 
the Impact Assessment accompanying the  
proposal for a new Council Regulation.OBSERVATIONS
25.
While it is true that intervention mechan–
isms have been reformed recently, interven-
tion remains in place for a whole range of  major agricultural products such as cereals, skimmed milk powder and butter. Interven-
tion stocks may buildup again in future, in a 
situation of low producer prices, leading to a more important share of intervention goods 
in sourcing the scheme. In fact, interven-
tion stocks for certain products are currently 
increasing again.
26.
The food aid to deprived persons measure  
keeps a strong link with the CAP as long as 
it contributes to fulfil the objectives of this 
policy in particular in the area of market  
stabilisation.
The Commission proposal for a new Council 
Regulation seeks to remove the confinement 
of distributed products to those eligible for 
intervention.
27.
The Commission does not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the political discussions that are currently taking place following the sub-mission of the Commission proposal for a  new Council Regulation.
The Commission would like to underline that 
an overwhelming majority of Member States 
consistently vote in favour of the approval 
of the annual plans.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed48
28.
Since its inception, the scheme has had a  
two-fold complementary dimension: market stabilisation and social. The cost-efficiency 
of the scheme is to be assessed against the 
concurrent fulfilment of both objectives.
The 1998 evaluation study mentioned by  
the Court was elaborated by an independ-
ent consultant. The Commission’s qual-ity check of this report includes critical  
remarks related mainly to its methodology, 
the robustness of the analysis and the cred-
ibility of the results.
The various quotes highlighted by the Court 
bring forward the social component of the 
scheme, without nevertheless calling into  
question its agricultural dimension.
29.
Even if the social dimension of this scheme is duly recognised, the Commission would  
like to underline that Regulation (EC) No  
1234/2007 is a key Regulation of the Com-
mon Agricultural Policy, based on Articles 36 
and 37 of the Treaty establishing the Euro-pean Community.
33.
It emerges from the regular meetings that  the Commission holds with Member States’ authorities and charities as part of its man-
agement of the scheme, that there is gener-ally a high level of satisfaction on both sides 
with the way consultations are conducted at 
national level.
The Commission agrees however that there 
is room for improvement and has included in the Impact Assessment accompanying  the 2008 Commission proposal for a new  Council Regulation suggestions to enhance the link between the scheme and other  actions at Member State level, through for 
example the drawing-up of national food  
distribution programmes. These would be  implemented after the adoption of the new 
Council Regulation.34.
The notions of ‘potential beneficiaries’ and 
‘target population’ are different: while the former is a statistical indicator used exclu-
sively for the calculation of Member States’ 
allocations, the population actually targeted is defined at the appropriate geographical level by Member States’ managing authori-
ties in cooperation with charities (Arti-
cle 1(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92).
For the 2009 budget allocation of the plan, a 
new methodology has been used combining 
the number of people ‘at risk of poverty’ to 
the GNI per purchasing power parity for each Member State. This further proves that the 
number of people at risk of poverty is not a 
number of potential beneficiaries.
35–36.
The food aid measure does not claim to solve 
by itself the question of food insecurity in the EU. It is a contribution to the solution  
of a problem that requires not only the  
involvement of the Community but also the 
mobilisation of Member States’ authorities 
at various levels and of the civil society.
In this context, one of the aims of the pro-
gramme is to secure a reliable and stable  source of foodstuffs for the organisations  providing food assistance to the most  
deprived persons.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed49
Therefore, the estimates of the number of  
meals provided to the aid recipients are  not the best indicator of the programme’s  
impact, even if the distribution of approxi-
mately 156 million meals per year is to be  considered very significant.
The added value of this measure in improving 
the living conditions of the most deprived is better evidenced by the estimates included 
in box 5 of the Court’s report, according to 
which the EU scheme provides between 30 
and 70 % of the total food distributed in the 
Community to the most deprived people,  depending on the charities and the Mem-
ber States. This does represent a ‘significant 
contribution towards the well-being of its  
most deprived persons’.
37.
Nowadays selection criteria and targeting  are decided by Member States’ administra-
tions in cooperation with charities, the latter 
having to respect such criteria to be able to 
participate in the scheme.
The public consultation on the future of the 
programme that took place as part of the  Impact Assessment accompanying the Com-mission proposal for a new Council Regula-tion, has revealed a large consensus for not restraining the choice of the population to 
be helped to certain categories among the most deprived. The Commission’s opinion  
is that, by virtue of the subsidiarity prin-
ciple, such choice should be left to Member 
States.
Following the Court’s examples in Box 5, the 
EU scheme provides between 30 and 70 % of the total food distributed in the Community to the most deprived people, depending on the charities and the Member States. This is not negligible.38–40.
One of the specific features of this scheme 
is the essential role played by NGOs and  charities through their distribution chains  
and knowledge of the problems affecting  
the most deprived population of the Com-munity. By virtue of the principle of subsidi-arity, it is up to Member States’ authorities 
to determine the appropriate procedures  
and criteria to designate the organisations taking part in the implementation of annual 
plans.
In the same line, the selection of food aid  
recipients falls under the responsibility of  Member States by virtue of the principle of 
subsidiarity.
The Commission proposal for a new Council 
Regulation includes a more comprehensive 
reporting system by Member States to the  
Commission, the details of which would have to be laid down in the corresponding new  
implementing rules.
41.
Differences in the frequency of the reception of the aid are not a proof of a poor impact of 
the scheme. The food needs of most deprived individuals vary greatly from case to case  and over time. In order to be effective, the scheme requires a considerable degree of  flexibility so that it can be adjusted to a  
broad range of circumstances.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed50
44–45.
Over the years the Commission has adjusted 
the implementing rules of the scheme in  order to soften the criteria on the products 
to be distributed. A comprehensive descrip-
tion of these adjustments can be found in  the Impact Assessment accompanying the  Commission proposal for a new Council  
Regulation.
In the Commission proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation the range of food that may be 
distributed is no longer confined to the fam-
ilies of products eligible for intervention.
47.
The objective of the measure is not to pro-
vide an identical level of aid to all aid recipi-
ents as their needs are different too and so 
are the costs of food across Member States. 
The absence of uniform quantities distrib-
uted per person does not necessarily create a risk of poor impact nor of aid recipients  
being treated unequally.
49–50.
The Commission will do its utmost within the limits due to the nature and the specifici-
ties of this measure, to secure that the new implementing rules after the adoption of  the new Council Regulation lay down objec-tives and indicators according to applicable guidelines.
With this purpose, a series of measurable  
objectives and harmonised, measurable indi-
cators have been proposed in the Impact  
Assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for a new Council Regulation.52.
As foreseen in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3149/92 with regard to the allocation of resources to Member States, the Commis-
sion duly considers the reports transmitted 
by Member States as part of the monitor-ing mechanism and in addition to regular  contacts with Member States, in particu-
lar within the frame of the Management  
Committee.
Moreover, the Impact Assessment accom-
panying the proposal for a new Council  
Regulation presents various findings based 
on the study of the national reports, such  as for example the number of beneficiaries 
of the aid. This proves that the Commission 
analyses and makes use of these reports.
53.
In application of the subsidiarity principle, it 
falls on Member States to fix the definition of beneficiaries best suited to the particular 
situation of its most deprived population.  
Therefore, the Commission is of the view that 
common standards or definition of benefi-
ciaries would not bring about any improve-ment to the efficiency of the programme.
In the Impact Assessment accompanying the 
proposal for a new Council Regulation the  Commission has expressed its intention to reinforce Member States’ reporting obliga-
tions. Details are to be laid down in the new implementing rules after the adoption of the 
new Council Regulation.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed51
56.
For the 2009 plan the Commission has fol-
lowed a new method for the calculation of national allocations that takes into account 
the differences in purchasing power between 
Member States. Details about this calcula-tion are provided in the annex to the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for 
a new Council Regulation.
57.
The Commission takes account of significant 
under-execution by Member States. The fact 
that no adjustment was applied during the 
period under scrutiny (plans 2006–2008) is due to the high level of execution achieved by participant Member States.
The Commission stresses that any calcula-
tion method has to be based on official sta-
tistics available for all Member States.
58.
The definition of national needs is the  
responsibility of Member States following  
their own procedures, in particular con-
sulting involved charities. In this sense, the 
Commission has always actively encouraged 
Member States to involve charities in the  inception of the programme.
The Commission proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation foresees that Member States 
co-finance the programme, which will fur-ther encourage Member States to secure the 
necessary matching between requests and  
effective needs (see Annex 14 to the Impact 
Assessment accompanying the Commission proposal).59.
While it is correct that Member States needs 
cannot always be satisfied at 100 % mainly due to the lack of resources, the Commission 
makes every effort to meet Member States 
requests in the largest possible manner.
Member States communicate to the Commis-
sion the products they wish to get. These  
initial requests are discussed both in the  framework of the Management Committee  
and in bilateral contacts. As a consequence 
the initial requests are adjusted. As an  
ex ample rice and butter were replaced by  
other products. However, from this proce-dure it cannot be concluded that the Mem-
ber States were allocated products which  
they did not want. Fact is that Member  
States accepted that their initial request  
could not be met and that, in exchange, they 
have received products which they initially 
did not demand. Nevertheless, all Member States accepted these decisions and wel-
comed the products they finally received.
63.
EU and national legislation on public pro-curement apply to the tenders run in the  
framework of this scheme, without the need of this legislation being explicitly mentioned in Regulations.
64.
See the Commission reply to paragraph 63.
The Commission has performed 6 audits  
between 2006 and 2007 without finding  
any major shortcoming in the procedures  followed by Member States to run the ten-ders. Furthermore, it has found that opera-tors based in a different Member State are 
granted with supply contracts, which shows 
that competition between operators from  
various Member States occurs. Overall, the 
way Member States conduct the tenders has 
proven in compliance with the requirements laid down in the EU Directive 2004/18/EC.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed52
65.
One of the objectives of the programme is 
the disposal of intervention stocks. When  available they constitute the priority source 
of supply for the programme. Furthermore, 
the disposal of intervention stocks through this scheme enables the Community to save the storage costs that otherwise would have 
to be borne by the EU budget.
66.
Tenders are run by Member States under  
their authority. See Commission reply to  
paragraph 64.
The Commission mainly follows the evolu-
tion of market prices for unprocessed agri-
cultural products while the tenders concern 
food ready for consumption. No operational 
conclusions can be based on comparisons  
between both types of prices.
67.
See the Commission reply to paragraph 64.
Directive 2004/18/EC governing the pro-
cedures for the award of public works con-tracts, public supply contracts and public  
service contracts, is in force in all Member States. Even when, within a Member State, provisions regulating tendering procedures differ, they remain in conformity with the  Directive.
Chapter VI of the Directive contains provi-
sions on publicity of the calls. Calls for ten-
der are required to be published in national 
Official Journals, as well as in the Official  
Journal of the European Union . In some Mem-
ber States visited by the Court, calls for ten-der are also publicised via Internet.Provisions regarding the delays for sub-
mission of offers are laid down in Art. 38  of the Directive and can vary according to  
the modalities of implementation chosen in 
Article 36.
The criteria to award contracts are the ones 
described in Article 53: i.e. the most advan-
tageous offer in terms of quantity offered/transport cost, or the lower offer in terms  
of price.
68.
The Commission too noted the sometimes  low number of participants submitting bids 
but it found no evidence of a link between 
the low participation and the way the Direc-
tive requirements were implemented.
Given the diversity both in terms of quantity 
and quality of the products to be supplied, it is not possible to compare prices obtained 
under the calls for tender with market prices. 
Consequently, no conclusion can be drawn 
on this basis about the ‘quality’ of the offers 
submitted.
69.
The Commission audits also found that sev-eral companies were awarded contracts  over several years but there is no evidence 
of a link between the low participation and 
the way the Directive requirements were  implemented.
70.
The scheme since its beginning aimed at  withdrawing stocks from intervention,  relieving EU expenses on storage costs. This additional economic effect should be taken into account.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed53
(a)
Given the basic link of this programme with 
intervention stocks, bartering was until  recently the core of the scheme.
(b)
Almost all Member States have in place com-mittees to establish bartering references,  including those Member States visited by  
the Court.
74.
While appreciating the Court’s positive  
assessment of various elements of the  
Commission proposal for a new Council  Regulation, the Commission does not wish 
to pre-empt the outcome of the political  
discussions currently taking place on this  
basis.
Further, the Commission would like to stress 
that the European Parliament’s opinion
5 
does not call into question the opportunity 
to continue to finance this measure through 
CAP expenditure.
As mentioned in paragraph 25 above,  
intervention stocks for certain prod-ucts are increasing under current market  conditions.
5 European Parliament legislative resolution of 
26 March 2009 (TA/2009/188) on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 
1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural 
policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 
a common organisation of agricultural markets and 
on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 
(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 
to the most deprived persons in the Community (COM(2008)0563 — C6-0353/2008 — 2008/0183(CNS)).75.
The Commission is of the view that par-
ticipation of Member States should remain voluntary.
Setting obligations on the origin of the  
product would not only pose major con-trol difficulties but would impose a huge  administrative burden for Member States’  
administrations without any improvement  of the efficiency of the scheme, rather the 
contrary.
CONCLUSIONS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
76.
The measure has two complementary objec-
tives: market stabilisation and contributing 
to the well-being of the most deprived.
The evaluation report to which the Court  
refers was elaborated by independent con-
sultants and its conclusions should be read 
taking into consideration the Commission’s 
critical remarks on the quality of the study, 
in particular with regard to its methodology, 
the robustness of the analysis and the cred-ibility of the results.
77.
The European Parliament has just released 
its opinion
6 supporting with certain amend-
ments the proposal of the Commission for a 
new Council Regulation adapting the meas-
ure to new prevailing conditions.
Decisions to continue implementing the pro-
gramme have been taken on the merits of  the measure on both its social and market  stabilisation dimensions.
6 See footnote 5.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed54
78.
Although the Commission appreciates the  
Court’s positive assessment about its pro-posal for a new Council Regulation, it does 
not wish to pre-empt the ongoing debate at 
Council level on the appropriate financing of this measure for the future.
The abovementioned EP opinion reflects the 
support of this institution for the measure to continue to be funded from the Common 
Agricultural Policy.
Recommendation 1
After having analysed in an extensive way  the technical, political and legal elements  
of the programme (see the Impact Assess-
ment supporting the Commission proposal 
for a new Council Regulation), the Commis-
sion has concluded that the CAP was the  
appropriate frame for the continuation of  the scheme.
79.
The Commission is of the view that the pro-
gramme is being implemented by Member  
States with a satisfactory level of coordina-
tion and consultation with all relevant actors although further progress in this domain is 
always to be pursued.
Recommendation 2
For years, the programme has had a power-ful leverage effect on the development of  
food initiatives or related measures by pri-
vate bodies (charities) and public authorities (Member State and local levels).
Such role can be further promoted. While  
taking due account of the subsidiarity prin-
ciple, several options to enhance the link  
between the scheme and other similar  
actions were analysed in the context of the 
Impact Assessment and some of them were included in the Commission proposal for a 
new Council Regulation.80.
One of the aims of this measure is to provide 
charities with a stable and reliable source of foodstuffs for assisting the most deprived  
persons. In this sense, the impact of the pro-
gramme cannot be merely assessed on the average number of meals that it provides but on the extent to which it does contribute  
to the supply of charitable organisations.  
This aim is largely attained as far as the pro-gramme provides between 30 and 70 % of  
the total food distributed in the Community 
to the most deprived people, depending on 
the charities and the Member States.
81.
By virtue of the subsidiarity principle, Mem-
ber States define the criteria of the popula-
tion having access to the food aid distributed 
by this measure.
Recommendation 3
The Commission already analysed this issue in the framework of the Impact Assessment 
accompanying the proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation. It concluded that the respect 
of the subsidiarity principle goes along with 
a higher efficiency of the scheme when the targeting of the beneficiaries remains the  
Member State’s competence. This position is supported by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders and coincides with the result of 
a public Internet consultation that received more that 14 000 replies.
The Commission’s proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation incorporates the obligation  for Member States to prepare national food distribution programmes that would include comprehensive information on recipients  
and charities taking part in the programme. 
Details will be laid down in the implement-
ing rules after the adoption of the Commis-
sion proposal.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed55
82.
Over the years the Commission has adjusted 
the implementing rules of the scheme in  order to soften the criteria on the products 
to be distributed. A comprehensive descrip-
tion of these adjustments can be found in  the Impact Assessment accompanying the  Commission proposal for a new Council  
Regulation.
Recommendation 4
The Commission proposal for a new Coun-cil Regulation
7 includes the removal of this 
restriction.
83.
By its very nature, such a scheme has to  
adapt to very different situations in the vari-
ous participating Member States. For this  
reason, the variety of systems is an essential 
prerequisite of the proper functioning of the measure.
The needs of food aid vary hugely between 
individual aid recipients and over time.  
The differences in the quantity of food dis-
tributed to every individual aid recipient  
can therefore not be presented as unequal treatment.
The setting of common standards would not 
necessarily result in improving the impact of 
the measure that, as proven in Box 5 of the Court’s report, is very substantial in the light 
of the share of food distributed by NGOs  
sourced from the EU programme.
7 Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common 
agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets 
and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 
(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 
to the most deprived persons in the Community (COM(2008) 563 final).Recommendation 5
Introducing standards at Community level  
could hinder the necessary flexibility the  programme must preserve in order to adapt 
to the varied circumstances of the most  
deprived.
The Commission considers that the way the 
programme is currently run, with a large  
element of subsidiarity built in it, attains a significant impact and allows an equal treat-
ment to all the aid recipients.
84.
The Commission, also based on its audits,  can claim that Member States implementa-tion is globally satisfactory even if certain areas may improve further.
The method for the allocation of financial  
resources is transparent and based on the  
best statistical information available. Year  after year, participating Member States  
endorse this method when voting in favour 
of the annual plans in the Management  
Committee.
Recommendation 6
In the Impact Assessment accompanying  the proposal for a new Council Regulation, a series of measurable objectives has been proposed. The Commission will consider  
introducing corresponding performance  indicators in the framework of the revision 
of the implementing rules after the adoption 
of the new Council Regulation.
The Commission has equally expressed its  
intention to reinforce Member States’ report-ing obligations in particular through the  new national food distribution programmes, in order to ensure a better follow-up of the scheme and improve its planning and man-agement over time.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed56
85.
Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination  of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and pub-lic service contracts, provides a common  legal basis throughout the EU. The audits  carried out by the Commission conclude to the compliance of the call for tenders run by the Member States with the Directive. Dif-ferences in modalities found in the Member States are foreseen in the Directive. Some-times operators take part in tenders organ-ised in other Member States.
Recommendation 7
The Commission already analysed the ques-tion of the tendering procedures in the  Impact Assessment accompanying the Com-mission proposal for a new Council Regula-tion including some ideas for enhancing the EU-wide publicity of the tenders. Detailed  rules may be laid down in the new imple-menting rules after the adoption of a new  Council Regulation.
The Commission will examine the propo-
sition of the Court as regards the adapta-
tion of the bartering arrangements without 
 nevertheless preventing the possibility to  
mobilise intervention stocks as this practice 
is at the core of the scheme.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed57

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the met hods employed59
European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 6/2009
European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union2009 — 56 pp. — 21 
/H11003 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9207-340-4doi: 10.2865/2420

How to obtain EU publications
Publications for sale:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;•  by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
Free publications:•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
IN THIS REPORT THE COURT MAKES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 
MANAGEMENT, THE RESOURCES AND THE IMPACT OF THE EU FOOD PROGRAMME FOR THE MOST DEPRIVED CITIZENS. THE MEASURE WAS 
FIRST INTRODUCED IN 1987, BY USING A GRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN 
PUBLIC INTERVENTION STOCKS, AND IS STILL APPLIED IN CERTAIN MEMBER STATES. THE REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE  PROGRAMME, ESPECIALLY THAT FOR THE ‘CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE WELL-BEING’  OF THE MOST NEEDY REMAIN VALID, AND MAKES A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT INCREASING THE IMPACT OF THE MEASURE. 
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORSQJ-AB-09-007-EN-C
eQb:IQiIQiqbIhAqIA