EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2437 
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 cer tain agricultural products (Single CMO 
Regulation) as regard food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community 
 
Impact Assessment Summary  
{COM(2008) 563 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2436} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The EU’s “Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community” 
(referred to here as the MDP) has been in  place since December 1987, when the Council 
adopted the rules for releasing public intervention stoc ks of agricultural products to Member 
States wishing to use them as food aid for th e most deprived persons  of the Community.  
To ensure continuity of suppl y, in the mid-1990s the MDP was modified to make it possible 
to supplement intervention stocks with market  purchases. This was not intended as a long-
term solution but one that could be called up on when there were insufficient supplies of 
certain products. The basis of th e programme remained intervention, “until the stocks have 
been run down to a normal level” .  
Ongoing reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have gradually returned 
intervention to a safety net role. In 2008 ma rket purchases make up 90% of the food 
distributed. Intervention stocks are low and no new build-up of surpluses is forecast or 
particularly likely, in view both of the revisi on of the CAP and the world market situation.  
Consequently, a new basis for the MDP has to be established. To this end an impact 
assessment was carried out, in the course of wh ich Member State representatives and charities 
were consulted and an online questionnair e enabled feedback from a broad public. 
• How the programme works 
The MDP is funded by the European Agricu ltural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). Its budget has 
increased from slightly less than € 100 milli on in 1987 to more than € 305 million in 2008. 
Participation in the programme is voluntary; in 2008 nineteen Member St ates are taking part. 
Each year, Member States wishing to particip ate communicate their needs to the Commission, 
in terms of quantities of the products available in inte rvention stocks. Based on this and 
Eurostat data on poverty the Commission defi nes a budget ceiling for each participating 
Member State and a list of products to be wit hdrawn from public stocks or purchased on the 
market, using the budget allocated. 
When intervention stocks are supplied, tenders are launched for the conversion, or exchange, 
of these commodities (e.g. wheat) into processed products of the same "family" (e.g. flour or pasta). These products are distribu ted as food aid to the most depr ived, either in the form of 
food baskets or as meals in centres run by char ities and other competen t bodies, designated by 
the Member States. In 2006 over 13 million people in 15 Member States benefited from the MDP.  
• Who the programme helps 
The MDP supports the provision of  food to individuals or especi ally vulnerable  families who 
find themselves in difficulties. In 2006, an estimated 43 million people in EU-25 were at risk of food poverty. The percentage va ried between about 2% in Denm ark to 37% in Slovakia. In 
5 out of 10 new Member States the indicator was above 20%.  
Children from poor families are particularly vulne rable; their eating patterns determine future 
health-related problems, incl uding reduced brain development and capacity to learn.  
 
EN 3   EN The elderly are often reported as suffering from malnutrition; because of poverty or disability, 
inadequate and insufficient nutrition is common.  
Homeless people are clearly at ri sk, as are asylum seekers and irregular migrant workers, who 
are generally not included  in official figures; their status  may impede them from benefiting 
from social services and they make up a larg e portion of soup kitchen beneficiaries.  
• The basis for Community action 
Hunger, deprivation, poverty and so cial exclusion are all European  issues that are present in 
every Member State. The MDP addresses these problems directly, in the spirit of the Treaty, 
which states that the Union's aim is to "promote the well-being of its peoples"  and "promote 
[...] solidarity among Member States ." 
More specifically, the programme contributes to meeting the CAP's objectives of stabilising 
markets and ensuring that supplies reach c onsumers at reasonable prices. Although the CAP 
has in the past concentrated on supply-side measures, its pur pose has always also been to 
ensure that demand can be satisfied. 
Social support provided by Me mber State authorities rarely  focuses on access to food. Food 
initiatives that target socially excluded and marginal popula tions tend to be led by charitable 
organisations and run with the help of volunteers.  
The MDP should be seen as making a contributi on that can trigger Member State action, and 
help charities and civil society develop their own initiatives to ensure the right of all EU citizens to food. An EU framework can ensure that the programme is conducted according to 
EU standards of good governance while dove tailing with existing Member States 
programmes.  
2. O
BJECTIVES  
The MDP's goal is to reduce food in security and so help guarantee the right to food in the EU. 
The revision of the programme should aim: 
• To secure a stable source of food for the targeted population  
• To enhance public governance 
• To improve targeting on those in need. 
3. POLICY OPTIONS  
Option 1 – Intervention only ("Status quo") 
If market purchases cannot be used on a perm anent basis, the MDP w ill depend on available 
intervention stocks as the sole source of f ood for distributing to th e most deprived. These 
would be exchanged for more usable food products in the same "family", under the 
responsibility of the Member States. As now , the food would then be distributed by the 
organisations they choose.  
 
EN 4   EN To simplify procedures, each MS would have di rect access to intervention stocks located on 
its own territory and transport co sts would be incorporated in the calls for tender. Available 
stocks could be transferred between MS, subj ect to specific agreements between the MS 
concerned. Information concerning the stocks  mobilised would be made available by the 
Commission's electronic informa tion and communication system. 
Option 2 – Intervention stocks co mplemented by market purchases  
The programme would continue to be based on  withdrawals from intervention when stocks 
are available, supplemented by market purchases. If  the available stocks are not suitable (e.g. 
their quality is inappropriate for human co nsumption) or their location would entail 
unreasonably high transport costs, Member States  would not be obliged to use them for the 
MDP. 
When intervention stocks are used the pro cedure would be simplif ied, as for Option 1. 
Products eligible for purchase would no longer be restricted to the present "families" of products and no preliminary a llocation by type of product w ould be necessary. MS could 
decide which products to purchase. 
To improve transparency, Member States would have to publish online information 
concerning the tenders.  
Option 3 - Market purchases only 
The link with intervention stocks would disa ppear and the programme based solely on a 
budget transfer to be used for market purch ases. Member States would decide, without 
restriction, which products to purchase with the Co mmunity funding allocated.  
Like Option 2, this would offer greater flexibil ity, allow a better nutritional balance than at 
present and more efficient management of th e MDP. Dissemination of information on tenders 
would be emphasised, as for Option 2. 
Option 4 – Termination of th e food distribution programme 
As intervention stocks have become less available,  the programme has lost at least part of its 
rationale and should be termin ated after 2009 or phased out.  
4. H
ORIZONTAL ISSUES  
• Inclusion in a broader social policy context  
The EU currently coordinates Member State ac tions to combat poverty and social exclusion, 
through the exchange of good practi ces and other forms of mutual learning. This aspect could 
be strengthened in a new MDP.  
• Targeting beneficiaries 
Issues concern the targeting of  food aid on specific population( s), targeting criteria and the 
best level for defini ng this targeting. 
 
EN 5   EN • Reduction of food waste 
In a number of Member States charities alread y negotiate with superm arkets and other fresh 
food outlets to recuperate unsold, but still- good produce and distribute it to the needy. 
Member States participating in the MDP could be required to include actions concerning the 
recuperation of unwanted/waste food. 
• Administrative governance 
To improve transparency and consistency with the programme's objectives, multi-annual 
national programmes could describe national prio rities, the targeted beneficiaries, types of 
products and/or meals to be delivered etc. Deta iled procedures would ensure transparency in 
the tendering process. 
• Budget and financing 
A multi-annual framework could enable contin uity and medium-term planning by Member 
States and charities. The criteria used for the budget breakdown should be reviewed and 
Member State co-financing considered. 
• Food vouchers 
The possibility of basing the MDP on a food vouc her system was rejected  because of the risk 
of fraud. Control procedures would be burden some, efficiency poor and transaction costs 
high.  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
It was not considered possible to quantify the macro-economic  or environmental  impacts of 
the options. There is judged to be no international  impact; imported products would be 
eligible for market purchase. The options were assessed primarily for their impact on Member State public policies, on the charities and the  programme's beneficiaries . 
As the availability of intervention stocks is likely to be sporadic, the impact of Option 1  is 
only slightly less extreme than that of Option 4: the former leads to the drastic downsizing of 
the programme, the latter to its complete abandonment. 
The consequence of relying entirely on intervention stocks ( Option 1)  would be a big 
reduction of the food distribute d; the MDP could no longer func tion on its current scale and 
would provide little sup port for the deprived.  
On the basis of the 2008 budget, if  no products are available from  intervention stocks, the loss 
to charities carrying out the food distributio n would amount to €305 million. Charitable 
organisations and social services would either have to cut their programmes or seek additional help from private donations and Memb er State or local authorities.  
The termination of the programme ( Option 4 ) or its reliance only on intervention stocks 
(Option 1 ) could directly affect more than 13 mill ion people (2006 figures - 15 participating 
MS).  
 
EN 6   EN In the new Member States it is likely that the distribution of food aid to the most deprived 
would practically cease. In the "old" Member States the re duction in the amount of food aid 
distributed would be proportionate to the pe rcentage of aid represented by the EU's 
contribution.  
While in the "old" Member States developed welfare systems would c ontinue to reach low-
income families, this assistance (which mostly does not include the provision of food) does not in general reach the socially-excluded, who would suffer the greatest impact from the 
programme's termination. 
Rising food and energy prices mean that th e impact would have even more serious 
consequences for the EU population considered to be at risk of food poverty – and in 
particular the children. 
Options 2 and 3 would both have a similar impact, as both would enable the programme to 
continue. Both have the advantage of offering flexibility in the type  of food that can be 
distributed. The restriction now imposed that purchases must be in the same "families" of products as the availabl e intervention stocks w ould be removed, so allowing charities to 
improve the diversity and nutritional quality of the food they provide.  
The new Member States that take part in the programme see the Community programme as 
essential. It has enabled a much higher level of  support to the deprived, in response to a clear 
need in those countries and has helped increas e the efficiency and professionalism of the 
charitable NGOs. 
In addition, the provisio n of food aid offers a first contact between the charities and deprived 
people. Other support can then be arranged by th e charities or through the appropriate social 
services and help lead to the re integration of excluded people.  
Inclusion in a broader social policy context 
The MDP could make a greater contribution to promoting social inclus ion through its choice 
of objectives, target groups and products, the way it is organised and distributes food, the 
involvement of stakeholders in financial a nd other programme matters. However, as they 
depend on a largely voluntary workforce, some  NGOs might have difficulties in assuming 
new administrative tasks. 
Targeting 
Member States should continue to  target the populations  they consider can be most effectively 
aided, taking into account the specific situation and needs in their country. 
Food waste 
Various initiatives exist in the EU to recuperate  and redistribute this food to the deprived, but 
more can be done, such as logistical support and information exchange. The avoidance of 
food waste has environmental implications an d can also be a way of augmenting the food 
budget of charitable organisations. 
 
EN 7   EN Budgetary impact 
• EU budget 
Option 1:  the MDP would rely on intervention st ocks alone, which w ould be available 
erratically. Based on the availability of inte rvention stocks for the 2008 programme, spending 
would range between zero and €25 million, a saving of €275-305 million on the current 
budget. 
Option 4: termination of the MDP would save the entire budget, as there are no 
accompanying measures that entail ongoing expenditure. 
Options 2 and 3 have a similar budgetary impact. While the scope of the MDP has not been 
debated, it is clear that it shoul d remain a programme that make s a partial cont ribution to the 
food aid needs of Member States. 
Estimated on the basis of the re ference population in all 27 Memb er States, to maintain the 
MDP budget at the same level as in 2003, in real terms, would require a budget increase to nearly €500 million in 2008. 
A doubling of the budget would be easily absorbed by the charities, especial ly in view of high 
food prices. In recent years the budget allocated to the programme  has always been lower than 
the requests made by Member States. 
• Programming 
Multi-annual planning would have the advantag e of providing Member States with a mid-
term perspective, securing the s upply of food from year to year and offering greater flexibility 
in the MDP's implementation. 
Annual monitoring would allow adjustments to be  made when necessary. Unused funds could 
not be carried forward. 
• Methodology for allocating budget 
The current budget breakdown is based on the n eeds communicated by Member States and a 
"best estimate" of the number of deprived pe rsons in each. To better reflect cohesion goals, 
new methods for calculating th e budget breakdown have been examined, taking into account a 
combination of various indicators. 
• Co-financing 
Co-financing would give national administrations  greater involvement and enable an increase 
in the MDP's scale. The co-financing rate could vary between cohesion and non-cohesion Member States. 
Administrative costs and simplification 
The use of intervention stocks (Options 1 and 2) entails additional costs and administrative 
steps, which mean that part of the value of th e allocated budget may be lost, while the market 
purchase of food (Options 2 and 3) can result in economies of scale. 
 
EN 8   EN Option 2 would simplify Member State acces s to intervention stocks, making it no less 
efficient than Option 3, which allows only for b udget transfers. The use of intervention stocks 
has the advantage of reducing the time stocks are held, resulting in lower administrative and 
financing costs. 
Good governance perception 
The reduction or termination of aid would be badly perceived by both beneficiaries and the 
public. Options 2 and 3 would maintain the MDP’s current positive image. The use of 
intervention stocks for the programme (Options 1 and 2) especially if they were to reach high 
levels, would be well received and reflect good governance at EU level. 
6. MONITORING , EVALUATION AND REPORTING  
Regularly recorded indicators would permit the ongoing assessment of the MDP’s compliance 
with its objectives and allow the programme to be continuously improved.  
Control procedures would remain in the hand s of Member State administrations. Regular 
audits would be carried out by the Commission. 
Participating Member States would submit multi-annual programmes setting out the targeted 
population(s), the choice of organisations to  carry out the distribution, products to be 
distributed etc. and annual  implementation reports. 
7. CONCLUSION  
The EU Programme of Food Aid to the Most Depriv ed does not set out to resolve all food 
poverty in the Member States. It aims to enha nce and/or trigger Member State action, and to 
help support charities and civil society in deve loping their own initiatives to ensure the right 
of all EU citizens to food.  
Options 2 and 3 both meet the objectives assigned to a renewed MDP. As well as 
administrative simplification and improved governance, the Programme could introduce 
innovations as concerns food waste and insertion into th e broader social context.