WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Sapard programme

The most recent annual report of the European Court of Auditors shows, inter alia, that only 9,2 % of the total Sapard appropriations available to the applicant countries were paid out, of which only EUR 1 million, or 0,1 %, was transferred to the final beneficiaries.

1. Why were only 9,2 % of the appropriations paid out? Does the reason for the low payment rate rest with the Commission, or are the beneficiary countries responsible?

2. Has the Sapard programme started up in all the applicant countries?

3. 0,1 % of the appropriations actually reached the final beneficiaries. Does the Commission see the Sapard programme as being a success?

4. If not, will the Commission take steps in the period leading up to accession to prepare farmers in the applicant countries for that accession?

5. If the Commission is planning to adopt such measures, what form will they take?

6. Apart from the figures, the criticism of the Sapard programme voiced by the Court of Auditors has not changed by comparison with previous reports. Why has the Commission not yet found any suitable way of resolving the problems?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

1. Payments to an applicant country under the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) instrument are legally possible only when the country concerned has built the structures to administer it and obtained a Commission decision conferring management of aid on the relevant implementing agencies. By the end of 2001, the year covered by the latest report from the Court of Auditors, several countries accounting for the bulk of Sapard budget resources had not reached this stage and so no payments to them could be made. A second element that limited payments is that the amounts paid on account were limited to half the legal maximum. This was done on grounds of sound financial management as there was no objective reason to pay at the legal limit. This point and all others mentioned above are explained in section 7 of the Commission Sapard Annual report for 2001.

2. Yes, the last one, Hungary, has secured its conferral decision on 26 November 2002.

3. The figure quoted relates to the situation at the end of 2001. Since then the amount paid to beneficiaries has increased substantially. Moreover the Commission, as stated in the Sapard Annual report for 2001, considers that an assessment of the instrument in terms of payments risks giving a distorted image particularly at this stage. It should be noted that one of the two main objectives of Sapard is to contribute to the implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the common agricultural policy and related policies. Building the structures for managing Sapard will greatly facilitate the implementation of the acquis in many areas upon accession.

4. and 5. Other things being equal the Commission would also have preferred a more rapid implementation of Sapard. Where specific difficulties in programme implementation are encountered these are usually considered in the monitoring committee meetings, and where appropriate tackled by amendments of programmes. In addition the Commission in June 2002 sponsored a seminar involving all ten countries to deal inter alia with this issue. It has also, by letter of 13 June 2002, invited Candidate Countries to submit suggestions to simplify the legal framework. As regards expenditure developments, the declarations for the third quarter 2002 show that implementation is rapidly increasing for most countries which obtained their conferral decisions in 2001.

6. The criticisms made by the Court of Auditors, apart from the budget uptake remarks already commented upon, all received reasoned responses. Some remarks concerning management of the instrument have now been reflected in the Multi-Annual Financing Agreement between the Community and each Candidate Country (reporting of interest and better definition of the competence of the monitoring committee). As regards the shortcomings in Commission's methodology for approving national management of Sapard cited by the Court of Auditors, the Commission has expressed its commitment to correct these elements.