2009
INFORMATION PROVISION 
AND PROMOTION MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTSEUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS
Special Report  No 10
EN
ISSN 1831-0834

INFORMATION PROVISION 
AND PROMOTION MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTSSpecial Report  No 10   2009
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty)
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products2
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 10   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 978-92-9207-362-6doi:10.2865/50551
© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
 GLOSSARY
I–XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1–10  INTRODUCTION
1–4  GENERAL FRAMEWORK
5–7  RECENT INFORMATION PROVISION AND PROMOTION MEASURES
8–10  OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
11–15  AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
16–52  OBSERVATIONS
16–29  THE IMPACT OF THE POLICY IS CURRENTLY DIFFICULT TO MEASURE
16–18 OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
19–23 LIMITS OF EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE POLICY
24–29 DIFFICULTY OF EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMMES
30–40   THE DEGREE OF RIGOUR AND SELECTIVITY IN THE APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMMES 
HAS BEEN IMPROVED BUT STILL NEEDS TO BE CONSOLIDATED
31–33 PRESELECTION BY MEMBER STATES OF PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMMES
34–40 INCREASED STRICTNESS ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION
41–52  THE CHECKS IN PLACE CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES STILL NEED IMPROVING
41–43 SELECTION OF THE IMPLEMENTING BODIES44–46 MONITORING OF EXPENDITURE STEPPED UP BY THE COMMISSION
47–52 PERSISTENT WEAKNESSES IN THE CHECKS BY SOME MEMBER STATES
53–57  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 ANNEX I — SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE DURING THE PERIOD AUDITED ANNEX II —  LIST OF THE THEMES, PRODUCTS AND COUNTRIES THAT MAY BE COVERED BY THE ELIGIBLE MEASURES
 REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products4
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products5
GLOSSARY
Countries that can be covered by the measures : If a non-Community country is targeted, 
it must be on the list of eligible third countries or areas to be drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.
This list is currently shown in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.
Guidelines : For promotion on the internal market, the Commission must adopt guidelines to 
be followed defining the strategy for the proposed programmes for each of the selected sec-tors or products; these guidelines must provide general indications concerning the objectives and targets to be reached, the themes, the types of measures, the duration of programmes and the indicative distribution of the Community’s financial contribution. Currently, these guidelines are set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 (OJ L 147, 6.6.2008, p. 3) and the indicative budget is shown in Annex III to this regulation.
For promotion in third countries, the Commission may adopt guidelines for each of the 
selected sectors or products.
Implementing body : After inviting competitive offers by all appropriate means, the pro-
posing organisation shall select the bodies responsible for implementing the programmes 
(Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008).
These are typically communication and advertising agencies.
Monitoring group : The programmes are monitored by a monitoring group, comprising 
representatives of the Commission, the Member States concerned and the proposing organisations.
Programme : The various information and promotion measures for agricultural products 
shall be implemented as part of an information and promotion programme (Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008).
Proposing organisation : This term designates the ‘organisations responsible for imple-
menting information and promotion measures’ defined in Article 6 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 3/2008 (OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1). These are the trade and/or inter-trade organisation(s) 
representing the sector(s) concerned in one or more Member States or at Community level which draw up proposals for information and promotion programmes.
Themes and products which may be covered by the measures : The themes and products 
which may be covered by a co-financed programme are defined in general in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008. Within this framework, the Commission draws up lists of the eligible themes and products which are revised every two years. These lists are currently to be found in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
The European Union has implemented and 
co-financed promotion measures for agri-
cultural products since the beginning of  
the 1980s. From 1999 on, the various exist-
ing arrangements were brought together  
into a common scheme for all the products concerned. These promotion measures are  
mainly programmes of between one and  
three years co-financed up to a maximum  
of 50 % by the European Union and destined both for the internal market and for third  countries.
II.
The Commission is currently making a thor-ough review of the scheme. In particular,  this could result in a significant increase in 
the information and promotion budget.
III.
The Court’s audit concerned the effective-
ness of the information provision and pro-
motion measures and the regularity of the 
expenditure earmarked for this purpose. The 
audit was carried out at the Commission and in the three Member States principally con-
cerned by the scheme.
IV.
The Court found that the Commission had for 
some years been making improvements to  the management and control arrangements for expenditure connected with informa-tion provision and promotion measures for agricultural products. Through this process, positive results have already been obtained in some areas but it still needs to be further consolidated and expanded.V.
The Court also found that the impact of the policy, although it is probably positive, is  
at present difficult to measure. There are  
no specific objectives based on an explicit 
strategy which can serve as a yardstick for 
evaluating the effectiveness of the policy.  Defining a specific strategy and objectives 
therefore seems a precondition for defining 
suitable indicators, which are lacking at the 
moment. The impact to be expected from  the promotion scheme is nevertheless cir-cumscribed from the start by a budget that 
is relatively modest in relation to the large number of products and geographical areas to be covered and the lack of an adequate procedure for ensuring complementarity  
with the various national or private promo-
tion measures. Finally, although the infor-mation available encourages expectations  
of a positive impact, the limitations of this 
information make it difficult to measure the 
individual effectiveness of the co-financed 
programmes, and indeed the overall effec-
tiveness of the policy.
VI.
The Court therefore recommends that the  
policy objectives be specified, whilst at the 
same time ensuring that the stated ambi-
tions and the budgets that are committed are consistent with each other. These objectives 
should be expressed as ‘SMART’ objectives, 
so that suitable performance indicators can 
be defined and monitored. A formal pro-
cedure for consulting all the stakeholders  
should be introduced for the whole pro-
cess, from defining the strategy through to implementing the procedures that ensure  
complementarity with the various promo-tion measures that already exist.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products7
VII.
In the absence of a useful measure of their 
impact, the anticipated effectiveness of the 
measures rests in large part on a suitable  
selection of programmes proposed. Although 
control by the Member States remains some-
times too limited in this area, the Commis-sion has become much more demanding and 
selective. This improvement nevertheless  
needs to be confirmed.
VIII.
The Court therefore recommends that the  improvements currently being made to the Commission’s selection procedure should  
be continued, especially as regards the  requirement for information on the expected impact of the programme and the manner  
in which it will be measured, and that the  Member States should continue to increase 
their selectivity, amongst other things by  
verifying information as to the relevance of 
the proposals.
IX.
The checks made on the selection of the  
implementing bodies, which have a key role 
to play in programme implementation, are 
too limited. The Commission’s subsequent  
monitoring of expenditure, on the other  
hand, has been stepped up. By contrast,  significant control weaknesses, which had  
been repeatedly identified over the last  
few years, still persist in Spain and Italy.  
Although action has finally been taken in  
these two Member States in an attempt to  
correct these shortcomings, at the time of  
the audit it was still too early to say whether these changes had been effective, so this  
will have to be confirmed in the future.EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
X.
The Court recommends that checks on the  
selection of implementing bodies should be 
stepped up and that the control weaknesses 
identified in one Member State should be  
followed up so as to ensure speedy improve-
ment in these shortcomings.
XI.
When considering the potential impact of  
the recommendations made in this report,  the size of the budget devoted to the pro-motion arrangements needs to be borne in 
mind. The Commission is currently making a thorough review of this scheme. This could in particular lead to a proposal to signifi-cantly increase the information and pro-
motion budget. For that reason, the Court  
recommends that these improvements be  made as soon as possible.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products8
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
 1.  The European Union has implemented and co-financed promotion meas-
ures for agricultural products since the beginning of the 1980s. Until 
1999 these measures were handled sector by sector, on the basis of a 
range of regulatory provisions specific to the various common market 
organisations (CMOs).
 2.  In 1999 these regulations were harmonised and replaced by a scheme 
combined in two Council regulations1 which governed promotion in 
third countries and promotion on the internal market respectively. 
These two regulations were then amalgamated at the beginning  
of 2008 into Council Regulation (EC) No 3/20082, which is a single  
regulation covering all policies for promoting agricultural products without modifiying significantly the content of the two previous  regulations.
 3.  According to the regulations now in force, the measures referred to must 
cover a period of between one and three years and may consist of  
public relations, promotional or publicity actions, which must high-
light the advantages of EU products, especially in terms of quality, 
hygiene, food safety, nutrition, labelling, animal welfare or respect 
for the environment. Also covered are participating in events and  fairs, information campaigns on the EU system of protected desig-
nations of origin (PDO), protected geographical indications (PGI),  
traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG), quality wines produced in  
specified regions (‘quality wines psr’), or information on EU quality 
and labelling systems and on organic farming. Regarding third coun-tries, such measures may also include studies to find new markets.
 4.  Subject to specific exceptions, these programmes are financed up to a 
maximum of 50 % by the European Union, the remainder being paid 
by the trade and/or inter-trade organisations  that proposed them  
(minimum 20 %) and by the Member States concerned.1 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2702/1999 of 
14 December 1999 on measures 
to provide information on, and 
to promote, agricultural products 
in third countries (OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 7) and Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 
of 19 December 2000 on 
information and promotion 
actions for agricultural products 
on the internal market (OJ L 328, 
23.12.2000, p. 2).
2 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 
on information provision 
and promotion measures for 
agricultural products on the 
internal market and in third countries (OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1).
See Annex I  for the sequence 
of the various implementing 
regulations in force during the 
period of the audit.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products9
RECENT INFORMATION PROVISION 
AND PROMOTION MEASURES
 5.  The annual budget appropriations for information provision and promo-
tion measures for agricultural products have risen strongly over the 
last few years, from 17 million euro in 2002 to 50 million euro since 
2007 (see Graph 1 ).
 6.  Most of the cost relates to the EU’s co-financing of programmes. Around 
200 programmes were running during the period 2007–08, involving 23 different Member States, sometimes as part of ‘multi-country’ pro-grammes co-financed by several Member States at the same time.
 7.  In response, amongst other things, to a request from MEPs, the Commis-
sion is currently making a thorough review of this scheme, mainly as 
regards third countries. This could in particular lead to a significant 
increase in the information and promotion budget, as well as giving 
priority to programmes targeting third countries.
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION (PAYMENTS) ON INFORMATION PROVISION  
AND PROMOTION MEASURESGRAPH 1
0102030405060
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Millions of euro
Co-financed programmes Direct payments
Source : General budgets of the European Union 2002–09.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products10
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
 8.  The programmes are usually submitted by ‘proposing organisations’. 
Member States, having assessed proposals for programmes for con-
formity with the regulation, suitability and value for money, send  
the Commission those which they have agreed to co-finance. The  
Commission, after examining the proposals and possibly requesting 
amendments, selects the programmes that are to be co-financed.
 9.  These programmes are then carried out by the ‘implementing bodies’. 
These bodies must be selected by the proposing organisation after 
‘inviting competitive offers by all appropriate means’. The Member 
State is responsible for monitoring the conditions under which the programmes are selected and for informing the Commission about 
this procedure.
 10.  Under the terms of shared management, the Member State is also respon-
sible for monitoring the proper implementation of the programmes, payments to beneficiaries and related checks. A monitoring group, 
presided over by the Member State concerned and including in prac-
tice a representative of the Commission, meets regularly to monitor 
the progress of the various programmes.
Source : Association 5 al día.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products11
 11.  The main reason behind this audit is that, although the budget devoted 
to information provision and promotion measures for agricultural  
products is still relatively modest, it has been constantly growing  over the last few years. Moreover, it could be further enlarged in the 
future, particularly as promotion measures are included in the ‘Green 
Box’ for WTO negotiations. Indeed, a request along these lines was 
made by the European Parliament at the end of 2007
3.
 12.  The Court’s audit concerned the effectiveness of the information provi-
sion and promotion measures and the regularity of the expenditure. The audit questions were as follows:
Does the system of management and monitoring in place allow (a) 
the Commission to demonstrate or measure the effectiveness of the measures?
Does the system of management and monitoring in place make (b) 
it possible to obtain reasonable assurance that programmes are 
selected in a regular, transparent manner and on the basis of  
relevant criteria and information?
Does the system of management and monitoring in place make it (c) 
possible to obtain reasonable assurance as to the legality/regu-
larity of the expenditure?
 13.  The audit was carried out between June and October 2008 at the Com-
mission and in Spain, France and Italy. As shown in Graph 2 , these 
three countries are three of the five main Member States concerned 
by the scheme. They represent nearly 45 % of the expenditure and Italy is the largest beneficiary.3 See the explanatory 
memorandum of the ‘Report 
on the proposal for a Council 
Regulation on the information provision and promotion measures 
for agricultural products on the 
internal market and in third 
countries (COM(2007) 268 — 
C6-0203/2007 — 2007/0095(CNS))’.AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products12
 14.  The audit mainly concerned the period from 2006 to the end of the 
first half of 2008. Since the promotion programmes are multiannual, 
reviewing the programmes selected in this period sometimes led to an examination of earlier documentation.
 15.  The audit approach consisted of assessing the procedures established 
by the Commission and Member States for implementing the policy. The audit work was based mainly on analysis, documentation and  
evaluation of the procedures and systems implemented during the main stages by:
the Commission (selection of programmes, monitoring and check- —
ing of expenditure, monitoring of implementation and impact of 
the programmes); and
the Member States (calls for proposals, preselection of pro- —
grammes, checking the selection of implementing bodies, manage-
ment and monitoring of the implementation of the programmes 
and payments made).
  The auditors’ work also included a visit to at least one proposing organi-
sation which was a beneficiary of the policy in each Member State, 
and also to its implementing body.
MAIN BENEFICIARY MEMBER STATES ( 2007–08)GRAPH 2
ItalyFranceSpainOther
Germany
Greece
Source : European Commission.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products13
THE IMPACT OF THE POLICY IS CURRENTLY 
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE
OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
 16.  The stated objective of the information provision and promotion meas-
ures for agricultural products is to promote European agricultural  products. However, the current arrangements result from merging  
the earlier schemes from the various CMOs without setting out an  overall strategy or defining ‘SMART’
4 objectives.
 17.  In the absence of ‘SMART’ objectives resulting from a clear strategy 
and by which the effectiveness of the policy could be evaluated, the indicators monitored and circulated by the Commission (see  Box 1 ) 
are simply ‘participation’ statistics and do not measure the results 
or impact of the policy.
 18.  Statistics such as these are not satisfactory as they are, but defining 
more suitable indicators seems difficult, pending a better definition 
of the objectives.4 Article 27(3) of Council 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 
on the Financial Regulation 
applicable to the general budget 
of the European Communities 
(OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1) provides 
that: ‘Specific, measurable, 
achievable, relevant and timed [SMART] objectives shall be set for 
all sectors of activity covered by 
the budget’.
STATISTICS MONITORED BY THE COMMISSION
Number of products involved.• 
Number of countries or geographic areas covered.• 
Number of programme proposals submitted to the Commission and acceptance rate.• BOX 1OBSERVATIONS
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products14
LIMITS OF EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE POLICY
 19.  Despite strong growth since 2002, the Community budget devoted to 
information provision and promotion measures is still relatively small 
in relation to the large number of products, geographical areas and 
subjects to be covered. In fact the Commission’s guidelines cover  
most of agricultural production and a list of countries correspond-
ing to most of the world market (see Annex II ). In addition, there  
are many PDOs, PGIs and other quality labels which are suitable for 
promotion measures. Given these objectives, a comparison between the promotion expenditure of other national or private stakeholders confirms that the sums committed are rather modest (see Box 2 ).
 20.  Taking into account this limited budget, the measures being taken can-
not on their own have a significant impact on the objectives.
PUTTING THE EU’S BUDGET FOR INFORMATION AND PROMOTION  
INTO PERSPECTIVE
EU’s budget for information and promotion
2002: 17 million euro.• 
2005: 32 million euro.• 
2008: 50 million euro.• 
Examples of other promotion budgets
The Swiss federal budget alone provided 36 million euro of assistance to promote sales of various • 
Swiss agricultural products in 2008 and the same sort of expenditure also exists in the cantons.
The promotion budget of the Interprofessional Council of Bordeaux wine•  (Conseil Interprofessionnel 
du Vin de Bordeaux, CIVB)  was more than 21 million euro in 2008.
The Italian authorities plan expenditure in 2013 of more than 100 million euro just for the promo-• 
tion of Italian wine.BOX 2
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products15
 21.  To achieve these objectives, these programmes ought at least, in accord-
ance with the recitals of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 (see Box 3 ), to 
be part of the wider framework of national and private measures,  particularly through the notion of complementarity or the multiplier 
effect.
 22.  There is, however, no instrument for guaranteeing or measuring, on the 
one hand, consistency or complementarity with the various national 
and private promotion policies, or, on the other hand, a ‘multiplier effect on national and private initiatives’. Moreover, the Commis-sion does not yet have full or reliable information about the various 
budgets or similar measures implemented in each Member State.
Source : Fancy Food Show (New York, July 2006).
EXTRACTS FROM THE SECOND AND FOURTH RECITALS  
OF REGULATION (EC) NO 3/2008
‘[…] to develop an overall, coherent information and promotion policy […]• 
‘Such a policy usefully supplements and reinforces the schemes run by Member States […].’• 
‘Such action, by helping to open up new markets in third countries, is also likely to have a multiplier • 
effect on national and private initiatives.’BOX 3
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products16
EXTRACTS FROM EVALUATION REPORTS ON THE LIMITS  
OF COORDINATION AND SYNERGIES
‘The regulations do not provide clear and explicit incentives for promoting synergies between co-• 
financed programmes, whether within a single country or between countries. The same was observed 
of synergies between co-financed programmes and MS or private sector programmes.’
‘The regulations and programme documents do not refer to how synergies can be brought about • 
and there is no evidence that any of the campaigns have promoted cooperation at EU level. […] 
No synergies or specific coordination mechanisms have been identified between co-financed pro-
grammes […].’
‘Only the national authorities and proposing organisations are able to ensure complementarity • 
between European, national and private promotion initiatives. Whilst redundant aspects and contra-
dictions had been avoided, few synergies could be identified […] The diversity of the programmes being supported does not promote complementarity between European programmes.’BOX 4 23.  The available evaluation reports5, while recognising that Community 
co-financing may well have generated some positive effects, also  
underlined the absence of a coordination mechanism and the limited synergies or aspects of complementarity (see Box 4 ).
DIFFICULTY OF EVALUATING THE IMPACT 
OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMMES
 24.  The Court’s auditors examined a sample of 30 programmes completed in 
the period 2006–07 in order to establish to what extent the available activity reports provided for in the regulations
6 allow the Commis-
sion to demonstrate or measure the individual impact of the various 
programmes.
 25.  This examination showed that the Commission does not have a formal 
procedure for analysing these reports. The cases examined did not 
always show signs of such analysis and some of them did not contain 
all the reports or other requisite items.5 The Commission ordered seven 
external evaluations during 
the period 2006–07 on various 
subjects or geographic areas. These evaluations were based 
inter alia on examining samples 
of programmes implemented with 
effect from 2002 or 2003.
6 Articles 13 and 14 of 
Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1071/2005 (OJ L 179, 
11.7.2005, p. 1) and Articles 14 
and 15 of Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 1346/2005 (OJ L 212, 
17.8.2005, p. 16) provide for the preparation by beneficiaries of 
reports containing inter alia ‘a 
summary of the work carried out 
and an evaluation of the results 
obtained […]’.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products17
 26.  In most cases7 the ‘summary of the work carried out’ is sufficiently 
detailed to understand the way in which the money was spent and 
what measures were carried out, and to ensure that these were con-sistent with the promotion objective. By contrast, although the audi-
tors could see an improvement, the quality of available information 
on ‘the evaluation of the results obtained’ is still less than satisfactory 
(see Box 5 ):
Almost all the reports contain a qualitative assessment of the  (a) 
impact but, in most cases, it is not documented or even properly 
argued and therefore it is not actually possible to evaluate the impact of the measures.7 Six examples were found in the 
sample that was examined where 
the auditors considered that this 
was not the case.
EXAMPLE OF A NON-DOCUMENTED QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL 
IN ONE OF THE ACTIVITY REPORTS EXAMINED
The ‘Evaluation of the project’s impact’ section of one report that was examined stated ‘Even though we do not have completely exact indicators, we can assure you with absolute confidence and in all 
conscience that the three-year campaign conducted by the XX company has achieved excellent results, 
which are on a par with or even better than those forecast in the approved programme […]’.
EXAMPLE OF AN INDICATOR NOT DIRECTLY CORRESPONDING TO THE AIMS SET BY THE PROGRAMME
One programme had as its objective to inform consumers about the specific qualities of PDO dairy 
products. Although the implementation report states the number of contacts achieved by the various 
measures, it does not contain any analysis of the impact of these contacts on the level of information to consumers.
Conversely, an analysis of this kind did form part of the implementation report for a ‘Poultrymeat’ 
programme that was examined.
EXAMPLE OF INDICATORS ANNOUNCED BY THE PROGRAMMES BUT NOT FOLLOWED UP
One ‘Fruit and vegetables’ programme set specific objectives (‘to achieve average fruit and vegetable consumption of 6,2 portions per day and per person’; ‘to achieve an average level of consumption of 
four apples per week per person’; ‘kiwis: to achieve a 60 % market penetration rate’) and even stated 
‘The progress made in achieving these objectives will be monitored annually’.
But the reports that were examined did not contain any indicator corresponding to this planned 
monitoring.
One ‘Wine’ programme was forecasting 10 million contacts, but the corresponding reports did not 
contain any monitoring of this indicator.BOX 5
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products18
Most reports contain quantitative indicators but these are mostly (b) 
of the type ‘number of contacts generated’. Although this type 
of indicator can contribute to the evaluation of the impact of  the measures, it is often insufficient when it comes to the real  
objectives of programmes designed to increase sales or improve 
consumer knowledge.
Certain reports (c) 
8 do not contain the impact indicators which were 
announced when the programme was approved.
 27.  The Court’s observation concerning the difficulty of evaluating the impact 
of the various programmes on the basis of the information available 
is in part borne out by the various evaluations that have already been mentioned.
 28.  The fact is that, whilst most of the evaluations conclude that the vari-
ous measures do have a positive impact (see paragraph 29), they  
emphasise that effectiveness is in general not measured or is hard to measure and that it is, for example, difficult to establish a direct 
link between the programmes and any changes in sales or demand 
that may be observed. The difficulty of measuring the efficiency of 
programmes (cost–impact ratio) is also pointed out (see Box 6 ).8 Three examples were found in 
the sample that was examined.
EXTRACTS FROM EVALUATION REPORTS ILLUSTRATING LIMITATIONS  
ON MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
‘Currently no conclusion is possible on cost • versus  impacts of measures or actions for the majority of 
programmes. [...] no causality link between I & P programmes and evolution of Community demand for F & V can be provided, and it is not easy to establish the link with demand for F & V in general, owing to the influence on demand of many external factors.’
‘The methods used for assessing the cost–output ratio are often subjective (unreliable and probably 
• 
biased) and lack rigour […] the absence of detailed quantitative data during implementation impedes 
sound judgment on the efficiency of specific actions or of the cost versus  impact relationship of the 
programmes […] no in-depth evaluations providing information on the TGs reached, the results or 
the impact of the programmes.’
‘There is an overall lack of measurement of the effectiveness of the measures in terms of improvement • 
of the image of the Community products and themes and of the demand for organic products. More-
over, there is a lack of norms against which the trends in these respects could be benchmarked.’BOX 6
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products19
 29.  Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, these evaluations conclude that 
the various measures do have a positive impact, chiefly in terms of 
image or the development of professional contacts for third coun-tries. In general, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the various measures 
is even favourably viewed in comparison with the standards of the 
sector, in particular as regards the internal market.
THE DEGREE OF RIGOUR AND SELECTIVITY 
IN THE APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMMES HAS BEEN IMPROVED BUT STILL NEEDS TO BE CONSOLIDATED
 30.  Where there are no objectives and indicators enabling the impact of the 
policy to be ascertained and measured, the scheme’s effectiveness depends to a large extent on relevant programmes being selected  for co-financing.
PRESELECTION BY MEMBER STATES OF PROPOSALS 
FOR PROGRAMMES
 31.  Under the regulation, the Member States evaluate the proposals for 
programmes for their conformity with the rules, their suitability and 
their ‘value for money’ and forward to the Commission the proposals that they agree to co-finance.
PROPORTION OF PROPOSALS VALIDATED BY THE MEMBER STATES  
THAT WERE CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE BY THE COMMISSION
Out of the sample of 30 proposals forwarded by the Member States in 2007 examined at the Commis-
sion, 10 had been rejected by the Commission on the grounds of ineligibility.BOX 7
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products20
 32.  Until recently, however, many Member States were forwarding the bulk of 
the proposals they had received after having carried out only limited 
preselection work. This lack of selectivity was reflected, for example, in very few proposals not being forwarded to the Commission, or  
again in the large number of proposals forwarded by the Member  
States that were in the end rejected by the Commission because they were ineligible (see Box 7 ). Furthermore, in making their appraisal, 
the Member States sometimes use the data supplied by the proposing organisations without these data having been adequately verified.
 33.  To encourage the Member States to be more selective, the Commission 
has gradually been laying down criteria to be applied when evaluating 
proposals for programmes. These specify the level of detail expected in the proposals and the type of checks to be carried out, and indi-cate a number of success factors that have been culled in particular from the conclusions of the various evaluation exercises mentioned 
above. This process is still under way, however, and therefore only 
time will tell how effective it actually is.
APPROVED PROGRAMMES THAT COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED
Of the 81 programmes closed during the 2006–07 period (approved between 2003 and 2006), there were 17 for which the rate of implementation was less than 70 % of the original budget, including 11 where the rate was less than 40 %.
In Italy one programme had been discontinued after one year, with less than 20 % of the budget having 
been spent, because from the very outset the planned measures had come up against legal problems 
in the target third countries.
In Spain, the implementation rate for the largest programme ever approved had been only 34 % of 
the initial budget because the association, for lack of the necessary resources, suffered a financing 
problem.BOX 8
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products21
INCREASED STRICTNESS ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION
 34.  An ex post  review by the auditors shows that a significant number of the 
programmes approved by the Commission during the period 2003–05 
were not carried through to the end, calling into question whether it was appropriate to have selected them. The audit in the Member States brought to light several cases where the reasons for these  
failures could most probably have been anticipated from the outset 
if the Member States or the Commission had been more thorough in their scrutiny of the proposals (see Box 8 ).
 35.  The Court nevertheless finds that the Commission’s level of selectivity 
in approving proposals has improved markedly since the early days of this scheme: the rate of approval has thus fallen from 100 % in  
2001–02 to less than 50 % in the period 2006–08, whilst the number 
of proposals received has increased (see Graph 3 ).
NUMBER OF PROGRAMMES APPROVED/REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONGRAPH 3
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080255075100125150
Approved Rejected
Source : European Commission.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products22
 36.  Further to this analysis, the Court’s auditors selected a sample of 30 pro-
posals approved (15) or rejected (15) over the period 2006–07 in  
order to review the available documentation on the choices that  were made.
 37.  The auditors’ examination of this sample first of all showed that, since 
2006, the selection process had been carried out by means of a proper, 
formal procedure that on the whole was well documented. Certain improvements still need to be made, however:
The procedure being used does not enable all the proposals  (a) 
received to be compared one with another on the basis of a uni-
form set of objective criteria. The Commission thus does not itself apply a principle which it requires the Member States to follow when making their preselection.
The examination also showed that, when case files are being  (b) 
appraised, there is not always a sufficiently formal approach to 
following up the problems that are identified and any replies that 
are received. Some proposals may thus be rejected without a suf-ficiently formal record being made of the unsatisfactory nature 
of the replies received, and other proposals may be approved  
without the replies received being documented
9, thus laying the 
final choice open to risk. New instructions directly addressing this 
point were, however, issued in the course of the audit.9 One or the other of these two 
points was thus found in three 
cases in the sample that was examined.
EXTRACTS OF OBJECTIVES FROM THE PROGRAMMES EXAMINED
An ‘Organic farming’ programme set out the following general objectives:
‘[…] to inform and interest the general public and, above all, the casual consumer. The main objectives 
are: to increase the level of knowledge about the specific characteristics and benefits; to help increase 
consumption of organic products; to make the logos better known.’
A ‘Dairy products’ programme set objectives such as ‘to change eating habits’ and ‘to introduce more 
dairy products into young people’s diets’.
In both cases, no quantitative objectives were specified nor was there any stocktaking of the situation 
at the outset.BOX 9
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products23
 38.  At the same time, the Commission became considerably more demand-
ing concerning the details that had to be provided in the proposals 
for programmes. Nevertheless, there are still weaknesses as regards the information that is required on the expected impact of the pro-
grammes and the manner in which it will be measured. Indeed, most 
of the approved proposals that were examined did not lay down  satisfactory objectives and/or indicators for measuring programme impact (see Box 9 ). This observation on the programmes is closely  
akin to the observation already made as regards policy, for which  
it was found (see paragraphs 16 to 18) that there were no specific  objectives or suitable indicators.
 39.  The fact is that, just as for the policy as a whole, the effectiveness of each 
of the programmes is difficult to measure if precise objectives and indicators have not been defined in advance in the light of a clearly 
established initial situation.
 40.  Moreover, some of the evaluation reports mentioned above have already 
pointed out shortcomings relating to the lack of a strategy and  
specific, measurable objectives for the various programmes (see  
Box 10 ).
EXTRACTS FROM EVALUATION REPORTS CONCERNING SHORTCOMINGS  
IN PROGRAMMES IN TERMS OF DEFINING A STRATEGY  AND SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
‘The programmes of the sample are in line with the regulations. […] They have however some design • 
shortcomings in the sense that objectives are rarely quantified and are not structured hierarchically; 
furthermore the underlying strategies are poorly described.’
‘[…] formulation of the programmes’ objectives by the proposing organisation appears in many cases • 
like a formal exercise rather than a real attempt to design an appropriate strategy.’BOX 10
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products24
THE CHECKS IN PLACE CONCERNING 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES 
STILL NEED IMPROVING
SELECTION OF THE IMPLEMENTING BODIES
 41.  The implementing body plays a key role in carrying out the programme, 
so that any weakness in checking the way it is selected is likely to have an effect on whether the programme is regular, effective and 
economic. This risk is all the greater when the proposing organisa-
tions’ minimum co-financing share is low and so the direct financial 
stakes involved for the beneficiaries who select the implementing  
body are limited.
 42.  It is basically up to the Member State to check the way in which the 
proposing organisation selects the implementing body. The checking 
procedures in use in the three Member States visited, and especially in 
Spain and Italy, however, were not sufficiently formal and systematic to make it possible to ascertain whether the choice did indeed result 
from actually ‘inviting competitive offers by all appropriate means’. 
For a fourth Member State, the Court also found a case where the  
information available showed that the proposing organisation had 
not complied with the terms of selection to which it had committed 
itself and raised questions as to the transparency of the final choice. 
Not one of these points had, however, been previously detected.
ILLUSTRATION OF THE CONDITIONS FOR SELECTING SOME IMPLEMENTING BODIES
In Italy, the average period of time noted by the auditors between the call for proposals being sent to 
possible service providers and the final selection of the implementing body was less than 10 working 
days.
Spanish legislation lays down a standard time limit of 15 days for the receipt of tenders from service 
providers as part of a public call for tenders.
For several of the programmes examined in the various Member States, the implementing body had 
been selected on the basis of examining one single service tender.BOX 11
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products25
 43.  As regards the procedures for selecting the service provider, very tight 
deadlines for invitations to tender were in some cases noted, which 
could hinder the presentation of tenders under proper conditions. In certain cases, the service provider may even be selected on the basis 
of a single tender received (see Box 11 ).
MONITORING OF EXPENDITURE STEPPED UP 
BY THE COMMISSION
 44.  For the last two years the Commission has been introducing or strength-
ening procedures and tools for its day-to-day monitoring of Member 
States’ programmes and payment claims. This has enabled it to detect and start rectifying a number of administrative anomalies that pre-viously existed: more systematic acquisition of the case documents required by the regulations, administrative closure of programmes 
completed several years ago, detection of errors that have led some 
Member States to charge to certain programmes payment claims  
higher than the amounts approved.
 45.  Despite the progress that has been made, the tools in place are still 
undergoing improvement, which is why some residual problems of 
the type described in the previous paragraph were still being uncov-
ered during the audit. Furthermore, the principle of approving annual 
budgets on the basis of the anniversary date specific to each pro-gramme
10 hampers effective (budgetary) year-by-year checks on the 
booked expenditure.
EXAMPLES OF SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT  
IN THE NATURE OF THE MESSAGES
One ‘Poultry’ programme used promotion material that provided the information stipulated by the 
regulations, but most of the expenditure incurred had been devoted to radio or television advertising 
spots which bore no relation to ‘the intrinsic qualities of the product concerned or its characteristics’ 
or to the objectives and main messages of the ‘poultrymeat’ guidelines.
Two successive ‘Wine’ programmes presented slogans and visual advertisements which had highly 
commercial connotations and had nothing to do with ‘the intrinsic qualities of the product concerned 
or its characteristics’.BOX 1210 For example, a two-year 
programme starting on 17 April 
of year N will have its expenditure 
approved for the two periods 
running from 17 April N to 
16 April N + 1 (Year 1) and from 
17 April N + 1 to 16 April N + 2 
(Year 2); these are periods which 
coincide neither with the EAGF 
financial years nor with those of the other programmes.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products26
 46.  As regards the actual content of the programmes, the eligibility condi-
tions specified in the regulations are sometimes subject to interpre-
tation. In particular, the regulations11 stipulate that ‘all information 
and/or promotion messages […] shall be based on the intrinsic quali-
ties of the product concerned or its characteristics’ and this criterion 
leaves great scope for interpretation. It is therefore sometimes dif-ficult to strike an acceptable balance between messages that directly satisfy the criteria of the regulation and more commercial promotion 
techniques (see Box 12 ).
PERSISTENT WEAKNESSES IN THE CHECKS 
BY SOME MEMBER STATES
 47.  The audits performed in Spain and Italy enabled the Court to follow up 
the management and control problems which had been identified  
by the Commission for several years and had already led to financial 
corrections being made as a result of procedures initiated in 2005. In 
both Member States it was apparent that the administrative practices 
still did not suffice to ensure that the management and control of the programmes met the regulatory requirements. Shortcomings of the 
same kind as those identified by the Commission in 2005 (significant 
weaknesses in checks, failure to abide by the time limits stipulated 
in the regulations, cases of the maximum Community contribution 
of 50 % being exceeded) were found in particular.
 48.  In Spain, the administrative verification tasks were not carried out in 
a sufficiently well-documented manner to be recognised and the  deadlines were often exceeded. The Spanish authorities themselves had found on several occasions that the system of checks in place to date was not able to guarantee that the expenditure complied with the regulations.
 49.  In Italy, the checks required by the Community regulations were often 
not carried out by the authorities and the administrative practices did not ensure that payments were made within acceptable periods of time. Internal control weaknesses were found at the proposing  organisations and at the implementing bodies as regards their ability to ensure the traceability of expenditure and a satisfactory level of information provision.11 Article 4 of Regulations (EC) 
No 1071/2005 and (EC) 
No 1346/2005.
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products27
 50.  In both these countries it was also found that the effectiveness of the 
checks could be further curtailed in cases where considerable use was 
made of subcontractors or intermediaries. In some of these cases, the Court’s auditors were not given access to all the supporting docu-
ments they asked for.
 51.  In both Spain and Italy, action had just been taken, however, to address 
the problems that had been found for more than four years. Neverthe-less, at the time of the audit it was still too early to verify whether 
these changes had been effective and so this will therefore have to 
be ascertained in the future.
 52.  The audit conducted in France found practices which, whilst still requir-
ing improvement or systematic application in some respects, were 
much more in keeping with expected practice.
Source : Centre d'Information des Viandes (CIV).
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products28
 53.  The Commission has for some years been improving the management and 
control arrangements for expenditure connected with information  
provision and promotion measures for agricultural products. Through this process, positive results have already been obtained in some  
areas but it still needs to be further consolidated and expanded, in 
particular with the prospect of the budget devoted to these arrange-
ments being increased.
 54.  The Court has found that the system in place does not make it possible 
to gauge the effectiveness of the measure. The impact of the policy, 
although it is probably positive, is currently difficult to measure, one 
of the contributory factors being that there are no specific objectives 
based on an explicit strategy which can serve as a yardstick for evalu-ating the effectiveness of the policy and monitoring the appropriate 
indicators (see paragraphs 16 to 18). The impact to be expected from 
the promotion scheme is nevertheless circumscribed by a budget  
that is relatively modest in relation to the large number of products 
and geographical areas to be covered and the lack of an adequate 
procedure for ensuring complementarity with the various national  
or private promotion measures (see paragraphs 19 to 23). The Court therefore expresses the following recommendations  regarding these 
points:
The policy objectives need to be specified whilst at the same time (a) 
ensuring that the stated ambitions are commensurate with the  budgets that have been committed.
These objectives should be expressed as ‘SMART’ objectives so that (b) 
suitable performance indicators can be defined and monitored.
A formal procedure for consulting all the stakeholders should be (c) 
introduced so as to ensure that, during the whole process, from defining the strategy through to implementing the procedures, 
there is complementarity with the various promotion measures 
that already exist. With this in mind, the Commission should in 
particular encourage the Member States to systematically notify 
it of the various promotion aids and measures in use nationally.
 55.  As regards selecting the programmes to be co-financed, the Commis-
sion’s selectivity has considerably increased in recent years (see para-
graphs 34 to 38). This progress nevertheless needs to be continued 
both at the Commission (see paragraphs 37 to 40) and in the Member States (see paragraphs 31 to 33). The Court thus has the following 
recommendations :CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products29
The improvements currently being made to the Commission’s  (a) 
selection procedure should be continued, especially as regards 
the requirement for information on the expected impact of the programme and the manner in which it will be measured.
The Member States should continue to increase their selectivity, (b) 
amongst other things by verifying information as to the relevance of the proposals.
 56.  As regards the implementation of the programmes and the legality/
regularity of the expenditure, the checks made on the selection of 
the implementing bodies, which have a key role to play, are still too 
limited (see paragraphs 41 to 43). The Commission’s subsequent moni-toring of expenditure has indeed been stepped up (see paragraphs 44 
to 46), but significant control weaknesses persist in certain Member 
States (see paragraphs 47 to 52). The Court therefore makes the fol-
lowing recommendations :
Checks on the selection of implementing bodies should be stepped (a) 
up.
Control weaknesses identified in one Member State should  (b) 
be followed up so as to ensure speedy improvement in these  
shortcomings.
 57.  When considering the impact to be expected from implementing the 
Court’s recommendations, the size of the budget devoted to the pro-
motion arrangements needs to be borne in mind. The Commission  
is currently making a thorough review of this scheme. This could in 
particular lead to a proposal to significantly increase the information and promotion budget. For that reason, the Court recommends that 
these improvements be made as soon as possible.
  This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 11 June 2009.
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products30
ANNEX I
SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE DURING THE PERIOD AUDITED
 Type of 
measureCouncil Commission
2008Internal 
marketCouncil Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 
of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal 
market  and in third countries
(OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1)
NB: amalgamation of the two previous 
regulations without any change in the content.Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 501/2008 of 5 June 2008 laying 
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market  and 
in third countries  (OJ L 147, 6.6.2008, 
p. 3)Third countries
Before 2008Internal 
marketCouncil Regulation (EC) 
No 2826/2000  of 19 December 
2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market
(OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2)
(Amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2060/2004 (OJ L 357, 2.12.2004, p. 3) and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 (OJ L 273, 17.10.2007, p. 1))Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1071/2005  of 1 July 2005 laying 
down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market  (OJ L 179, 11.7.2005, 
p. 1)
Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 94/2002  of 18 January 2002 laying 
down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market  (OJ L 17, 19.1.2002, 
p. 20)
Third countriesCouncil Regulation (EC) 
No 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 
on measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third countries  
(OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 7)
(Amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2060/2004)Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1346/2005 of 16 August 2005 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third 
countries (OJ L 212, 17.8.2005, p. 16)
Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 2879/2000  of 28 December 2000 
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third countries (OJ L 333, 
29.12.2000, p. 63)
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products31
LIST OF THE THEMES, PRODUCTS AND COUNTRIES THAT MAY BE COVERED  
BY THE ELIGIBLE MEASURES
LIST OF THE THEMES AND PRODUCTS CONCERNED ON THE INTERNAL MARKET
(Source: Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2005)
Fresh fruit and vegetables• 
Processed fruit and vegetables• 
Fibre flax• 
Live plants and products of ornamental horticulture• 
Olive oil and table olives• 
Seed oils• 
Milk and milk products• 
Fresh, chilled or frozen meat, produced in accordance with a Community or national quality • 
scheme
Marking of eggs for human consumption• 
Honey and beekeeping products• 
Quality wines psr, table wines with a geographical indication• 
Graphic symbol for the most remote regions as laid down in agricultural legislation• 
Protected designation(s) of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication(s) (PGI) and traditional • 
speciality(ies) guaranteed (TSG)
Organic farming• 
Poultrymeat• 
LIST OF THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS IN WHICH PROMOTIONAL MEASURES  
MAY BE CARRIED OUT
(Source: Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2005)
A. C OUNTRIES
Australia• 
Bosnia and Herzegovina• 
Bulgaria• 
China• 
Croatia• 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia• 
India• 
Japan• 
New Zealand• 
Norway• 
Romania• 
Russia• 
Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo• 
South Africa• 
South Korea• 
Switzerland• 
Turkey• 
Ukraine• ANNEX II
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products32
B. G EOGRAPHICAL  AREAS
North Africa• 
North America• 
Latin America• 
South-East Asia• 
Middle East• 
LIST OF PRODUCTS WHICH MAY BE COVERED BY PROMOTIONAL MEASURES  
IN THIRD COUNTRIES
(Source:  Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2005)
Fresh, chilled and frozen beef, veal and pigmeat; food preparations based on these products• 
Quality poultrymeat• 
Milk products• 
Olive oil and table olives• 
Table wines with a geographical indication. Quality wines psr• 
Spirit drinks with a geographical indication or a reserved traditional description• 
Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables• 
Products processed from cereals and rice• 
Fibre flax• 
Live plants and products of ornamental horticulture• 
Products benefiting from a protected designation of origin (PDO), a protected geographical indica-• 
tion (PGI) or a traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG)
Organic farming products• ANNEX II
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products33
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
SUMMARY
I.
Since 1999, the European Union has pursued 
an overall and coherent information and  
promotion policy for agricultural products 
and production methods and agricultural-based food products. The information and  promotion campaigns which it co-finances may take place either inside or outside the 
EU.
V.
With a view to sound management and in an attempt to improve implementation of this 
policy, the Commission requested a total of 
eight external evaluation studies between  2006 and 2008 and drew a number of conclu-
sions and operational recommendations.
These eight studies to evaluate promotion 
programmes in both the internal market and non-member countries and the two accom-
panying summaries highlighted the positive 
impact of these programmes in relation to 
the objectives set out below (see point 28) 
and the importance of the policy.
Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 lays  
down the objective of developing an overall, 
coherent information and promotion policy. 
The regulation sets four clear objectives in 
the fourth recital:
to usefully supplement and reinforce the  —
schemes run by Member States;
to boost product image in the eyes of   —
consumers in the Community and in  
non-member countries, in particular as 
regards the quality, nutritional value and safety of foodstuffs and the methods of 
production;
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products34
to help to open up new markets in non- —
member countries;
to have a multiplier effect on national   —
and private initiatives.
Similarly, Annex I to Commission Regula-
tion (EC) No 501/2008 also sets appropriate specific objectives for each of the various  products concerned.
As regards the modest budget, it should  
be remembered that it is intended only to  
supplement and reinforce schemes run by  
Member States, in line with the principle of 
subsidiarity.
VI.
The four objectives set out in Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 3/2008 and those set out in  
Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 are 
considered by the Commission as ‘SMART’  
objectives which should be pursued in all  
the programmes.
The Commission also bases its approach  
on the eight external evaluations on pro-motion policy which are under way. Docu-ment AGRI/63454/2007 was adopted and  
distributed on 2 October 2007 to the Mem-
ber States to evaluate the results which all future programmes should achieve.
The Commission is already in regular con-
tact with all the stakeholders involved in  promotion policy through the ‘Promotion  
of agricultural products’ advisory group. It 
responds to requests from working groups, 
conferences and seminars organised by the 
main stakeholders. It also plays an active  
part in the work of the various monitoring 
groups.
1 The current discussion within the  
Commission on the promotion of agricultural products will doubtlessly provide a further 
contribution.
1 These groups are provided for by Article 12(1) of 
Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.VII.
The promotion programmes have had and  
continue to have a tangible impact on the  
promotion of European agricultural prod-ucts, as shown by the eight evaluation stud-ies requested by the Commission.
A lack of selectivity and control by the Mem-
ber States at the preselection stage results in ineffective programmes being presented to the Commission. However, the Commission departments’ rigorous approach in applying the regulation
2 makes it very unlikely that  
this type of programme would be selected.
The Commission would ask the Member States 
to increase the standards of evaluation and 
selection for programme proposals.
VIII.
To ensure that improvements continue, par-
ticularly as regards requirements concerning 
information on the expected impact of the 
programme and the way in which it will be 
measured, the Commission has produced the following three documents:
guidelines to be considered when   —
assessing and managing part-financing programmes for promot-ing Community agricultural products  
(AGRI/60787/2007);
the document on evaluation matters   —
(AGRI/63454/2007);
a standard evaluation grid, allowing   —
the Commission to objectively assess  and quantify the evaluation of the pro-grammes (AGRI/64046/2008).
2 Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products35
IX.
With regard to the recurring weaknesses in 
Spain and Italy, following the investigations 
by the Commission in 2004 and 2005 which led to substantial financial corrections, the Commission launched follow-up investiga-
tions in 2007 and 2008. A third on-the-spot 
investigation is planned in Italy in 2009.
The Commission has carried out audits in  
Spain and Italy for all in respect of the finan-
cial years covered by the measure since 2003 
and in respect of these countries’ decentral-ised management up to now. The corrective 
measures adopted by these Member States 
have also been examined in the framework 
of clearance of accounts investigations.
The Court’s observations will also be  
taken into account during the clearance of accounts.
X.
Checks on the selection of implementing  bodies have been particularly stepped up  for those selected after adoption of the  Commission’s decision on the programmes accepted.
The manual of procedures for monitoring  
programmes now provides for tighter checks 
on the documentation submitted by Member States concerning national selection pro-
cedures (points 1.4 and 2).
XI.
Once the internal discussion on the strat-egy for the EU co-financed promotion policy has been completed, the Commission will  apply the operational guidelines based on  
its conclusions.OBSERVATIONS
16.Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 lays  
down the objective of developing an overall, 
coherent information and promotion policy. The regulation sets four clear objectives in the fourth recital which the Commission  
considers to be ‘SMART’:
to usefully supplement and reinforce the  —
schemes run by Member States;
to boost product image in the eyes of   —
consumers in the Community and in  non-member countries, in particular as 
regards the quality, nutritional value and 
safety of foodstuffs and the methods of 
production;
to help to open up new markets in non- —
member countries;
to have a multiplier effect on national   —
and private initiatives.
Similarly, Annex I to Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 501/2008 also lays down appropriate specific objectives for the internal market for each of the various products concerned.
17.
The Commission also bases its approach  
on the eight external evaluations on pro-motion policy which are under way. Docu-
ment AGRI/63454/2007 was adopted and  
distributed on 2 October 2007 to the Mem-
ber States to evaluate the results which all future programmes should achieve.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products36
18.
Document AGRI/63454/2007, drawn up by  
the Commission on the basis of external  evaluation studies, covers five main topics.
3 
The systematic application of indicators to 
all programmes approved by the Commis-sion will help to better harmonise the whole of the promotion policy and to increase the 
measurability of the objectives pursued.
19.
The fact that the Community budget for  
promotion and information measures is  
relatively modest is justified in part by the 
fact that its purpose is only to usefully sup-plement and reinforce the schemes run by 
Member States.
The promotion and information programmes 
are co-financed by the proposing organisa-
tions, the Member States and the EU. This  
system of co-financing is an effective method of making the stakeholders accountable and 
of beneficially applying the principle of sub-
sidiarity to this policy.
General reply to Box 2
The proposed comparison should take  account of the fact that the objectives and mechanisms of the above promotion pro-grammes are not comparable to those of  Community promotion policy.
3 Coherence between the implemented measures and 
the objectives of the regulation; actions and information 
channels used and their cost-effectiveness; coverage and 
content of the programmes; impact and effectiveness of the 
measures; and complementarities between programmes 
submitted by the Member States and programmes 
submitted by the professional organisations.20.
Since the beginning of this promotion and 
information policy (1999), several profes-sional organisations representing products 
and sectors have noted a definite impact of 
their action on achieving objectives. This  can be verified in the eight evaluation stud-ies requested by the Commission.
22.–23.
The Commission is aware of the deficien-cies pointed out by the Court and mentioned in the evaluation studies. Discussions are  ongoing within the Commission to improve the definition and implementation of the  programmes with regard to the synergy and 
complementarity of promotion campaigns  
and to address other problems raised by the 
external evaluators.
The promotion and information programmes 
are co-financed by the proposing organisa-tions, the Member States and the European 
Union. Under Article 9 of Regulation (EC)  
No 501/2008, it is the responsibility of Mem-
ber States to ensure consistency with other 
programmes and initiatives as part of their duty to see that the selected programmes  
are satisfactorily implemented.
Reply to Box 4
First and second indentsArticle 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 provides that the Commission must give pri-ority to programmes proposed by several  Member States and that the Commission  will continue to encourage representa-tive professional organisations to submit  ‘multi-country’ programmes and synergy  generators.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products37
Third indent
A working party was specifically set up at the 
meeting of the advisory group on promotion on 12 January 2009 to achieve more synergy 
between programmes. This working party  
could consist of representative professional organisations at European level and of rep-resentatives of the Member States.
25.
The vast majority of the programmes taken as examples by the Court of Auditors are pro-grammes selected by Member States before 2005. These programmes have not therefore been subject to the various improvements  made to the current rules.
4 Even before the 
Court of Auditors’ audit was announced, the 
Commission had drawn the attention of the 
Member States to all the documents, includ-
ing reports, which had to be examined.
After internal scrutiny by the Commission, 
the manual of procedures for the administra-
tors examining the programmes was tight-
ened up even more rigorously than the Court 
had recommended.
The new provisions set out in this manual  
pay particular attention to analysing the  responses received from Member States  concerning promotion material for prod-ucts, quarterly and annual reports, annual  and final evaluations, contracts, ‘template  
actions’, intermediate and final payments  and webpages.
4 After documents AGRI/60787/2007 and AGRI/63454/2007 
were drawn up.26.
These problems were detected after analy-
sis of the first external evaluations studies requested by the Commission.
To resolve them, the Commission issued all 
the Member States with a series of indica-tors on 2 October 2007 to assess all future promotion programmes
5.
(a)
The impact of the action taken can be  
gauged from the programmes approved  
from December 2008.
Most of the programmes taken as examples 
by the Court of Auditors are programmes  
selected before 2005. These programmes  
have not therefore been subject to the vari-
ous improvements which were made to the 
current rules.6
(b)See reply to point 26.
(c)
The comments made by the Court of Audi-tors were already taken into account by the 
Commission on 2 October 2007. The new  provisions in the manual of procedures cover this aspect and greater attention will be paid from now on to the analysis of information received from the Member States.
5 Document No AGRI/63454/2007.
6 Documents AGRI/60787/2007 and AGRI/63454/2007.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products38
General reply to Box 5
Most of the programmes taken as examples 
by the Court of Auditors are programmes  selected before 2005. These programmes  
have not therefore been subject to the vari-
ous improvements which were made to the current rules.
7
The Commission detected these problems  following analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States and acted immedi-
ately to resolve them, while at the same  
time respecting the principle of subsidiarity 
applicable to this policy.
8
Moreover, the new provisions in the manual of procedures stipulate that greater atten-
tion must be paid from now on to the analy-
sis of information received from the Member 
States.
Example of an indicator not directly  
corresponding to the aims set  
by the programme
The new provisions in the Commission’s  
manual of procedures stipulate that greater 
attention must be paid from now on to the analysis of information received from the  
Member States.
Example of indicators announced  
by the programmes but not followed upThe new provisions in the manual of pro-cedures stipulate that greater attention must be paid from now on to the analysis of infor-mation received from the Member States.
7 Documents AGRI/60787/2007 and AGRI/63454/2007.
8 This is why, when the Promotion of Agricultural 
Products Committee met on 2 October 2007, document 
AGRI/63454/2007 was distributed to all the Member States 
to help them to select programmes more efficiently and 
evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes they manage, 
check and co-finance. In this regard, please see also 
point 17 above.28.–29.
The importance and the positive impact of 
this policy can be easily illustrated using  passages from the above evaluations, for  
example:
’EU co-funding enables proposing organi-
sations to conduct ambitious, large-scale  programmes addressing a wide audience  with expected high impact [...]. Without  EU co-funding, some campaigns would not have been implemented’, and ‘EU co-funding produces multiplier effects, mainly by facili-tating implementation of other campaigns and [...] by promoting cooperation between Member States at EU level’.
9
Another passage states that: ‘As a conse-quence of these campaigns, the image (of  the promoted products) has improved among opinion leaders and the general public has been made familiar with a wider range of  products than before’ and ‘EU co-financing 
has been a clear incentive for profession-
als to join forces and for improving sector  
integration [...]. In particular, small produ-
cers felt encouraged to organise their own promotion campaigns outside their region 
of production.’
10
Moreover, ‘[...] They also state that, without co-financing, the programmes either would not have taken place or would have been  
much smaller.’
11
9 Fruit and vegetables sector, November 2007.
10 Wine sector, April 2007.
11 Organic products sector, November 2006.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products39
Moreover, even before the start of the  
Court of Auditors’ audit (on 4 April 2008)  and before the end of the cycle of the  
external evaluation studies requested by  
the Commission (in December 2008), the  Commission had already drawn up docu-ment AGRI/63454/2007 on matters relating 
to evaluation on the basis of the conclu-
sions and recommendations contained in  the evalu ation studies available.
Reply to Box 6
With regard to fruit and vegetables, the  —
detailed guidelines in Regulation (EC)  No 501/2008
12 show that the aims of the 
Community information and promotion policy are much broader and more com-plex, and certainly go beyond simply  quantifying consumption.
  The ‘Food Dudes’ programme, which was 
awarded the World Health Organisation 
prize in 2006 for its efforts to combat  
child obesity, should be mentioned as  
an obvious example of the multiple,  
complex dimension of the co-financed  
programmes.
12 The guidelines in Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 state that 
the main aims of the information programmes co-financed 
in the fruit and vegetable sector are ‘to improve the image of the products as being “fresh” and “natural”, encourage 
their regular consumption and bring down the average age 
of consumers. The latter may be attained by encouraging 
young people, and in particular children and adolescents 
in educational establishments, to consume the products concerned’.
 As for processed fruit and vegetables, the guidelines 
in Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 state that the main 
objectives of the co-financed information programmes are 
to modernise ‘the image of the product’ and make it more 
youthful, ‘giving the information needed to encourage 
consumption’.The Commission proposed remedies   —
to the criticism issued by the external  evaluation firms as and when it received 
their reports.
  The Commission focused in particular on 
the methods used to evaluate the cost–impact ratio based on the evaluation of the internal market programmes
13.
  The monitoring system has been consid-
erably improved and when it receives  
the annual reports for each programme, 
the Commission pays special attention  to the Member States’ evaluation of the measures introduced.
The Commission proposed remedies   —
to the criticism issued by the external  
evaluation firms as and when it received 
their reports.
30.
It will be possible to gauge the impact of  
the measures on the programmes approved 
as of December 2008.
See reply to point 26(a).32.
Because of the Member States’ lack of selec-tivity and control during the preselection  process, a number of ineffective programmes are presented to the Commission. Never-theless, the Commission’s rigorous applica-tion of the regulation
14 considerably limits 
the risk of this type of programme being  selected by the Commission.
13 Dated 15 February 2009.
14 Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products40
The Commission is making an effort to get 
Member States to raise their standards in  terms of evaluation and selection of pro-
gramme proposals.
33.
The Court refers to document  AGRI/63454/2007 of 2 October 2007. Since then, programmes have been evaluated on the basis of the criteria set out in this docu-ment, among other things.
As already stated in point 18, document  
AGRI/63454/2007, drawn up by the Com-mission on the basis of the findings in the external evaluation reports, covers coher-ence between the implemented measures  
and the objectives of the regulation, actions 
and information channels used and their  
cost-effectiveness, coverage and content  
of the programmes, impact and effective-ness of the measures, and complementari-
ties between programmes submitted by the 
Member States and programmes submitted 
by professional organisations.
This process entered into force in 2009 when 
the Commission selected the internal market programmes; the programmes preselected  
by Member States were sent to the Commis-sion on 15 February 2009.
34.
On 5 September 2006 the Commission carried 
out a thorough check of all the programmes 
running at that date. It noticed at that time 
that a significant number of programmes  had not been carried through to the end. It took immediate action with respect to the  Member States and introduced the correc-
tive measures required.Reply to Box 8 as a whole
Some of the programmes not carried through 
to the end complied perfectly with the selec-tion criteria defined by the various Member 
States when they communicated the pro-
grammes to the Commission. Based on the documents sent by the Member States — in particular the identification sheet — the  
Commission did not find sufficient reasons 
for rejecting these programmes, bearing in mind the rules applicable.
Some of the problems raised by the Court  
concern unforeseen problems which could 
not have been anticipated when the Member States selected the programmes or when the 
Commission approved them.
However, it must be stressed that most of  
the Court’s comments refer to programmes 
that have already ended. The current aver-
age rate of completion of programmes since the start of the measure is 85 %.
This increase in the rate of implementation 
is due mainly to the new provisions and tools 
introduced by the Commission to monitor  programmes from June 2006 on, in particular 
the IT monitoring programme MPP (manage-ment promotion programme) and the stand-ard forms given to Member States to ensure regu lar communication of the measures to be implemented and the related payments.
37.
(a)
Since 7 November 2008, the Commission has 
developed a uniform evaluation grid
15, form-
ing part of the manual of procedures. Using this grid, the Commission is able to evaluate all the programmes objectively.
15 Document AGRI/64046/2008.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products41
(b)
As acknowledged by the Court, new instruc-
tions concerning the follow-up to problems identified and any replies received by the  
Member States became the formal procedure 
following the audit of 2 October 2008.
38.
There is still some room for improvement  
as regards defining and implementing the  promotion programmes
16.
See reply to point 17.39.
The effectiveness of the information and  
promotion programmes has been evaluated 
on the basis of the new evaluation grid since 
15 February 2009.
40.
The Commission is aware of the shortcom-ings mentioned in the evaluation reports.  
Internal discussions are under way to  
improve the implementation of programmes 
in terms of the synergies and complemen-
tarity of promotion measures, and also in  relation to other problems raised by the  
external auditors.
41.
Member States are responsible for approving and monitoring the selection of the imple-menting body
17.
16 Document AGRI/63454/2007 has come into force.
17 Recital 8 and Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 501/2008.The Commission considers that its rigorous selection procedures for the programmes  limit the risk that a weakness in checking  
the selection of implementing bodies is  
likely to have an effect on whether the co-financed programme is regular, effective  and economic.
42.
In the specific case of implementing bod-ies chosen after the adoption of the Com-mission’s decision, points 1.4 and 2 of the  manual of procedures now applicable have reinforced the monitoring of the implement-ing body selection procedure since Member 
States must forward to the Commission all 
documents concerning this procedure.
43.–44.
When the Commission is selecting the pro-
grammes, it checks that the implementing  bodies were subjected to competitive ten-
dering procedures. This is one of the points 
on the checklist for officials entrusted with 
checking the eligibility of proposals.
During its investigations, the Commission  
uncovered irregularities in the tendering  procedures for implementing bodies. In  accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States must ensure compliance with the requirements in the regulation concern-
ing a competitive procedure. The Commis-sion has imposed a financial correction on 
Member States which have been found not 
to comply with these provisions.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products42
45.
Internal Commission discussions are in  
progress to find an appropriate solution to ensure that each phase of a programme cor-
responds to an EAGF budget year without  
making the system too rigid or excessively limiting the possibilities for implementing the programmes.
46. and boxes
Without prejudice to the correct application of the principle of subsidiarity, the Com-mission attaches particular attention to the messages used in order to strike a fair bal-ance between the information and commer-cial aspects of the promotion campaigns.
The selection procedure applied
18 by the  
Commission ensures uniform, impartial  
treatment of all the programmes.
During its investigations, the Commission  
identified failures to comply with the pro-
visions on product promotion and informa-
tion in relation to the intrinsic quality of the 
products concerned or their characteristics. 
In accordance with the principle of subsidi-arity, Member States must ensure that the  
criteria approved by the Commission regard-ing promotional messages are satisfied. The Commission has imposed a financial cor-rection on Member States which have been found not to comply with these provisions.
18 Appointment of a first and second reader for each 
programme, examination of all programmes by an 
evaluation committee and participation of external experts 
in the selection process.47.–52.
The Commission initiated investigations in 
2007 and 2008 following the significant cor-rections imposed on Spain and Italy after  
the 2005 investigations. Italy has again been 
subjected to a risk analysis by the Commis-sion, and a third investigation (on-the-spot inspection) is scheduled for 2009
19 to cover 
expenditure in 2008 and 2009, and subse-
quent years if necessary.
For these two Member States, all the finan-
cial years covered by the measure since 2003 
and their decentralised management to date 
are audited by the Commission.
During these ongoing audits for Italy20 and 
Spain21, the Commission asked these Mem-
ber States to communicate the corrective  
measures adopted, the inspection structures 
and the instructions given to the relevant  
inspection bodies.
The existence and impact of the changes  
announced by these Member States are  
currently being analysed as part of the  
current investigations for the clearance of  
accounts.
In addition to the corrections, the Com-
mission has made recommendations to  these Member States to step up their key  inspections and to remedy weaknesses in  
subcontracting.
Even though the Commission agrees with  
the Court that France’s practices were much 
more in keeping with expected practice, it nevertheless points out that it sent a series of recommendations to France to have them improved.
The Court’s comments will also be taken into 
account for the clearance of accounts.
19 LA/2009/006/IT.
20 LA/2007/020/IT.
21 LA/2008/007/ES.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products43
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
54.
Since 1999, the European Union has pursued 
an overall and coherent information and  promotion policy for agricultural products and production methods and agricultural-
based food products. The information and  
promotion campaigns which it co-finances may take place either in the EU internal mar-
ket or in non-EU countries.
With a view to sound management and in  
an attempt to improve implementation  of this policy, the Commission requested  eight external evaluation reports between  2006 and 2008 which demonstrated the  
importance of the mechanism and its posi-
tive impact (see point 28). Conclusions and 
operational recommendations have already 
been identified.
The eight studies to evaluate the informa-
tion and promotion programmes and the two 
accompanying summaries requested by the 
Commission highlighted the positive impact 
of the promotion programmes for the four 
specific strategy objectives set out in the  regulations. As regards the modest budget, 
it should be remembered that it is intended only to supplement and reinforce schemes run by the Member States.
(a)
The four objectives of the promotion policy 
set out in point V are clear.Moreover, Annex I to the Commission Regu-
lation
22 sets specific objectives for each of 
the various products concerned. These goals are accompanied by an overview of the situ-ation which led to the organisation of pro-
motion and information measures for the  product in question, the target groups, the 
main messages, the main channels and the 
duration and scope of the programmes. The 
discussions which are now taking place at  
the Commission will enable further improve-ments to be made in this respect.
(b)
The four objectives set out in Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 3/2008 and those set out in  
Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 are 
considered by the Commission as ‘SMART’  objectives which should be pursued in all  
of the programmes.
Document AGRI/63454/2007, drawn up by  
the Commission on the basis of the findings 
in the external evaluation reports, covers  
five main themes. Systematic application of indicators in all the programmes approved 
by the Commission would make it possible to harmonise further the entire promotion policy and enhance the measurability of the 
objectives pursued.
22 Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 laying down 
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 3/2008.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products44
(c)
The Commission is already in regular contact 
with all the stakeholders involved in pro-motion policy through the Advisory Group 
on Promotion of Agricultural Products. It  
responds to requests from working groups and takes part in conferences and seminars organised by the main stakeholders. It also 
plays an active part in the work of the vari-
ous monitoring groups
23.
The discussions which are now taking place 
at the Commission will enable further  
improvements to be made in this respect.
55.
(a)
The Commission will continue to improve  
the selection procedure by putting the  
emphasis on good evaluation methodology 
in each programme, based closely on docu-
ment AGRI/63454/2007.
(b)
The Commission agrees with these  
recommendations.
56.
The Commission considers it very impor-tant for the implementing bodies to com-
ply with the selection procedures, ensuring that Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC)  No 3/2008 on tendering procedures is prop-
erly applied.
The Commission considers that its rigorous 
selection procedures for the programmes  
limit the risk that a weakness in checking  the selection of implementing bodies is  likely to have an effect on whether the co-financed programme is regular, effective  
and economic.
23 The establishment of these groups is provided for in 
Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.Checks are carried out when selecting pro-
grammes and once the implementing body has been chosen. Similar checks will be car-
ried out in the subsequent phase of selec-
tion of the implementing body and in the  monitoring groups.
(a)
In the case of implementing bodies chosen after the adoption of the Commission’s deci-
sion, points 1.4 and 2 of the manual of pro-
cedures now applicable have reinforced the 
monitoring of the implementing body selec-
tion procedure since Member States must  forward to the Commission all documents  concerning this procedure.
(b)
The clearance of accounts department carries 
out permanent monitoring in those Member 
States whose inspections were found to have shortcomings leading to major financial cor-
rections by the Commission.
57.
Once the internal discussions on the strat-
egy for the EU co-financed promotion pol-
icy have been completed, the Commission  will apply the operational guidelines which 
emerge.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products45

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 10/2009 — Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products47
European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 10/2009
Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union2009 — 44 pp. — 21 /H11003 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9207-362-6doi:10.2865/50551

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 fax to +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 fax to +352 2929-42758.
IN THIS REPORT, THE COURT ANALYSES THE MANAGEMENT OF 
THE INFORMATION PROVISION AND PROMOTION MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THIS 
POLICY IS EFFECTIVE AND WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVED 
IS REGULAR.THE REPORT FINDS THAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE IN THE WAY THE SCHEME IS MANAGED, BUT HIGHLIGHTS OTHER ASPECTS STILL NEEDING IMPROVEMENT. THESE OBSERVATIONS FOCUS IN PARTICULAR ON THE DIFFICULTY OF MEASURING THE SCHEME'S IMPACT AND ON 
THE CONTROL WEAKNESSES IDENTIFIED IN SOME MEMBER STATES.THE REPORT ACCORDINGLY MAKES A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS WHOSE IMPACT COULD BE ALL THE MORE SIGNIFICANT INSOFAR AS THE BUDGET DEVOTED TO THE INFORMATION PROVISION AND PROMOTION 
MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IS LIKELY TO INCREASE IF 
THE REVIEW CURRENTLY BEING MADE BY THE COMMISSION RESULTS IN THE LATTER MAKING A PROPOSAL ALONG THESE LINES.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORSQJ-AB-09-009-EN-C
eQb:IQiIQiqbIhciIc