Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure - Early warning system No 1/2000
Date: 2000-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, credit, expenditure, farming sector













EUR-Lex - 52000SC0447 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



52000SC0447

Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure - Early warning system No 1/2000  /* COM/2000/0447 final */  









COMMISSION REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure - Early warning system No 1/2000COMMISSION REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure  Early warning system No 1/2000TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Appropriations2. Overall outturn in monthly expenditure3. Provisional utilisation of appropriations4. Comments5. ConclusionsANNEX:Document on drawing up the expenditure profile for 20001. Introduction2. Calculation method - Basic g rule3. Exceptions to the basic rule1. APPROPRIATIONS1.1. Appropriations under Subsection B1 of the 2000 budget1.1.1. The adopted budgetThe appropriations adopted by Parliament's President in December 1999 for budget Subsection B1 amount to EUR 40 993.9 million (including EUR 24.9 million in Chapter B0-40) [1].[1] Not including EUR 500 million of appropriations entered in the monetary reserve (B1-6).The appropriations- under the subheading for traditional EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure and veterinary expenditure (subheading 1a covering Titles B1-1 to B1-3) amount to EUR 36 889 million, i.e. EUR 463 million below the ceiling fixed in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 [2],[2] Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and the improvement of the budgetary procedure (1999/C 172/01).- under the subheading for rural development and accompanying measures (subheading 1b covering Titles B1-4 and B1-5) amount to EUR 4 104.9 million, i.e. EUR 281.1 million below the ceiling fixed in the Interinstitutional Agreement.The agricultural guideline is EUR 46 549 million and covers not only expenditure under Subsection B1 but also the expenditure of the SAPARD pre-accession instrument (EUR 529 million of commitment appropriations entered in Chapter B7-01). There is thus a margin of more than EUR 5 000 million between the agricultural guideline and the related appropriations.The appropriations in Chapter B0-40 (provisional appropriations) (EUR 24.9 million) will be available only after a transfer has been made. These appropriations will be allocated to specific items in the following chapters:&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;1.1.2. The budget procedureThe preliminary draft budget (PDB)The 2000 PDB was drawn up by the Commission and proposed to the Budget Authority at the end of April 1999. Total appropriations proposed for the EAGGF Guarantee Section amounted to EUR 40 901 million.The PDB took account of the ceilings for subheadings 1a (EUR 37 352 million) and subsection 1b (EUR 4 386 million) fixed in the financial perspective:- the requirements identified for subheading 1a exceeded the ceiling by EUR 212 million. The proposed appropriations were reduced across the board by EUR 250 million, so bringing them down beneath the ceiling,- the requirements identified for subheading 1b were well beneath the ceiling as well as meeting the requirements.The draft budgetThe Council adopted the draft budget in July 1999. It did not touch the appropriations in subheading 1b but reduced those in subheading 1a by EUR 375 million. Total EAGGF Guarantee Section appropriations thus amounted to EUR 40 526 million.The letter of amendmentIn October 1999 the Commission adopted a letter of amendment to the PDB to take account, firstly, of developments on the agricultural markets and, secondly, of recently adopted agricultural legislation giving rise to a small amount of additional expenditure.- The unfavourable developments on the agricultural markets led the Commission to propose:(a) a slight reduction in foreseeable requirements in relation to the PDB (EUR 65 million) for the whole of subheading 1a. The changes made to individual chapters were more marked:- clearance of accounts (- EUR 300 million):  Larger-than-expected negative corrections (amounts to be credited to the EAGGF Guarantee Section budget)- beef and veal (- EUR 191 million) :  Lower requirements for public storage and export refunds- sheepmeat and goatmeat (- EUR 186 million):  Rise in the average price on the Community market- olive oil (- EUR 159 million):  Downward revision for production in some Member States+ pigmeat (+ EUR 236 million):  The crisis lasted longer than expected+ sugar (+ EUR 158 million):  Higher export refunds following a drop in world prices+ arable crops (+ EUR 115 million):  Lower-than-expected price for oilseeds+ milk and milk products (+ EUR 102 million):  Higher production of butter and skimmed-milk powder and increase in some export refund rates;(b) an increase in foreseeable expenditure in relation to the PDB (EUR 200 million) for subheading 1b, with the aim of encouraging Member States to speed up submission of their new rural development programmes.- The additional requirements arising from recent agricultural legislation amounted to only EUR 38 million (and affected only subheading 1a). This was because there had been almost no changes to the basic regulations since the presentation of the PDB, which had already absorbed the impact of the Agenda 2000 decisions. Moreover, the financial implications of the Council's decision on the 1999/2000 price package differed little from to the Commission's initial proposal.The requirements identified for the EAGGF Guarantee Section in the letter of amendment amounted to EUR 41 324 million. [3] Since the requirements for subheading 1a exceeded the ceiling, the appropriations arising from the letter of amendment were fixed by applying a reduction of EUR 200 million across the board to the different budget items concerned, thereby leaving a margin of EUR 15 million beneath the subceiling concerned.[3] The requirements identified in the letter of amendment did not cover the requirement of EUR 20.9 million for Chapter B1-50.Adoption of the 2000 budgetThe Tripartite Dialogue on the 2000 budget was concluded in December, with the following result for the EAGGF Guarantee Section:- a further reduction was applied across the board to the different budget headings under subheading 1a. Appropriations are now EUR 463 million beneath the subceiling fixed in Berlin,- appropriations for chapter B1-4 in subheading 1b are EUR 297 million higher than the amount that the Commission requested in its letter of amendment, because Parliament increased the appropriations for the agri-environment programme.  Parliament also created a new title B1-50, "Support for the management of resources in support of the common fisheries policy", with an allocation of EUR 20.9 million. The Commission is currently studying the role of the EAGGF Guarantee Section with regard to this new title.Total requirements for 2000 thus amount to EUR 41 344.9 million. Appropriations for subheading 1a (traditional EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure and veterinary expenditure) fall short of the requirements identified by the Commission. By contrast, appropriations for subheading 1b (rural development and accompanying measures) are below the requirements. EUR 24.9 million have been entered in chapter B0-40.1.2. The SAPARD pre-accession instrumentThe appropriations for the new SAPARD pre-accession instrument for agriculture have been entered in Subsection B7 of the budget. They are subject to the agricultural guideline but not to the ceiling for Subsection B1.SAPARD expenditure is managed in accordance with the accounting rules for external aid and booked using a system of differentiated appropriations. EUR 529 million of commitment appropriations and EUR 200 million of payment appropriations have been entered in chapter B7-01.1.3. Non-automatic carryover of appropriations from 1999The Commission can propose the non-automatic carryover of appropriations not committed at the end of the financial year when the appropriations entered in the relevant budget headings for the following year do not cover requirements.The Commission will ask for appropriations to be carried over to cover the additional requirement in the 2000 financial year arising from the late payment by Italy of the first annual instalment of agrimonetary aid in 1999 (EUR 130 million). The 2000 budget provides only for the payment of the second instalment worth EUR 101 million. Since the first instalment was paid late, it is likely that the second instalment will also be paid later than planned, i.e. during 2001. The Commission will therefore request the carryover of EUR 29 million.The Commission will also request the carryover of approximately EUR 4 million for inspection measures in the context of humanitarian aid to Russia. These measures, which concern the monitoring, inspection, evaluation and audit for the quantities mobilised during 1999, must be continued in 2000 to ensure that the operation runs smoothly. Since the 2000 budget does not provide for any appropriations in this connection, a carryover will have to be proposed.&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;2. Overall outturn in monthly expenditureThe following table shows the overall outturn in monthly expenditure in relation to the expenditure profile. This situation corresponds to expenditure incurred in the Member States from 16 October to 30 November 1999.The annex to this report explains in detail how the expenditure profile is drawn up.2.1. Subheading 1a: Traditional EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure and veterinary expenditure&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;2.2. Subheading 1b: Rural development and accompanying measures&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;3. Provisional utilisation of appropriations&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;4. COMMENTS4.1. The uptake of appropriations for January 2000The uptake of appropriations under heading B1 of the budget for January 2000 (Member States' expenditure from 16 October 1999 to 30 November 1999) is EUR 14 281.2 million, i.e. 34.8% of appropriations. Expenditure is- EUR 913 million below the indicator for subheading 1a (traditional EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure and veterinary expenditure),- EUR 37 million below the indicator for subheading 1b (rural development and accompanying measures).Expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October and 30 November 1999 differed substantially from the Member States' payment forecasts, being around EUR 1 400 million lower than expected.- Italy paid out EUR 1 300 million less than it had anticipated. Payments of EUR 662 million on arable crops and EUR 517 million on olive oil were carried forward to December,- Spain and France also paid out less than they had anticipated (- EUR148 million and - EUR 187 million respectively). These payments were carried forward to December,- by contrast, Greece paid out more than expected on aid for cotton because the payments were made earlier than initially planned.The discrepancies between expenditure actually incurred and the indicator are strongly influenced by slippage in the Member States' rate of payments.4.2. Monetary factors4.2.1. The dollar/euro rateThe expenditure indicated under the above point takes account of the movement in the dollar/euro rate. In the case of a large part of export refunds for agricultural products, particularly for cereals and sugar, and of some internal aids such as aid for cotton, expenditure depends on the movement of the dollar rate.In accordance with the Council Decision on budgetary discipline, the 2000 budget was drawn up on the basis of the average dollar rate for January, February and March 1999, i.e. EUR 1 = $ 1.12.The real euro rates recorded in recent months were substantially lower than the budgetary parity [4]. The average dollar rate for the period 1 August 1999 to 31 July 2000 (reference period for determining the impact of the dollar) is therefore highly likely to diverge from this budgetary parity. The amount of expenditure incurred by the Member States will probably be higher as a result of the dollar rate.[4] The average dollar rate for the period 1 August 1999 to 25 January 2000 was EUR 1 = $ 1.04.It should be remembered that savings exceeding the margin of EUR 200 million fixed under the rules of budgetary discipline will be transferred to the monetary reserve at the end of the financial year.4.2.2. The impact of the dual rateThe movement in the dual rates will result in substantially lower expenditure than in previous years. Abolition of the green rates has eliminated the effect of dual rates in the countries participating in the euro and thus produced major savings. The cost of the dual rate to the EAGGF Guarantee Section at the time when the letter of amendment was prepared was estimated at EUR 119 million.4.3. Market factorsAs explained in point 4.1, the discrepancies noted at the end of November between expenditure actually incurred and the indicator are strongly influenced by slippage in the Member States' rate of payments.Chapter B1-12: Olive oil  //  - EUR 1 323 million(Expenditure: EUR 179 million)(Indicator: EUR 1 502 million)(Member States' forecasts: EUR 670 million)The olive oil production aid measure is by far the most important in this sector. Normally, about two-thirds of expenditure on this aid is paid during the first month of the financial year. This year, Italy had to carry forward more than EUR 500 million to December and Spain is planning not to pay almost all the aid (around EUR 800 million) until December.Chapter B1-14 :  Fibre plants and silkworms  //  + EUR 189 million(Expenditure: EUR 545 million)(Indicator: EUR 356 million)(Member States' forecasts: EUR 316 million)The overrun of the indicator is due to early payments of aid for cotton by Greece.Chapter B1-21: Beef and veal  //  + EUR 231 million(Expenditure: EUR 914 million)(Indicator: EUR 683 million)(Member States' forecasts: EUR 1 091 million)The overrun of the indicator is the result of earlier payments for premiums.Chapter B1-22:  Sheepmeat and goatmeat  //  + EUR 84 million(Expenditure: EUR 372 million)(Indicator: EUR 288 million)(Member States' forecasts: EUR 432 million)The indicator was overrun as a result of the increased rate of payment of the second advance on ewe premiums in relation to previous years.Chapter B1-39: Other measures  //  + EUR 51 million(Expenditure: EUR 117 million)(Indicator: EUR 66 million)(Member States' forecasts: EUR 20 million)The overrun of the indicator is caused by agrimonetary aid payments by France and the United Kingdom. The Member States' forecasts for the next few months indicate that this overrun is only temporary.5. CONCLUSIONS5.1. AppropriationsAppropriations for Subsection B1 of the 2000 budget amount to EUR 40 993.9 million.Appropriations under Subheading 1a for traditional CAP and veterinary expenditure amount to EUR 36 889 million, i.e. EUR 463 million below the ceiling fixed in the Interinstitutional Agreement and substantially below the requirements identified by the Commission.Appropriations under subheading 1b for rural development and accompanying measures amount to EUR 4 104.9 million, i.e. they are also below the ceiling fixed in the Interinstitutional Agreement, but cover the requirements identified by the Commission.5.2. Implementation of appropriations at 31 January 2000The uptake of appropriations for January 2000 (Member States' expenditure from 16 October 1999 to 30 November 1999) is EUR 14 281.2 million, i.e. 34.8% of appropriations. Expenditure is- EUR 913 million below the indicator for subheading 1a.- EUR 37 million below the indicator for subheading 1b.Expenditure incurred by the Member States during January differed substantially from the Member States' payment forecasts, being around EUR 1 400 million lower than expected.The discrepancies between expenditure actually incurred and the indicator are mainly due to slippage in the Member States' rate of payments.ANNEX  Paper on the establishment of  expenditure profiles for 20001. IntroductionUnder the terms of Council Decision 94/729/EC of 31 October 1994 on budgetary discipline, the Commission is obliged to establish an 'early warning system' covering expenditure trends for each chapter of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. To this end, the Commission presents monthly reports to Parliament and the Council comparing the development of actual expenditure with the forecast expenditure profiles.The profiles are established by the Commission, for each chapter of the budget, as soon as budget data are available: They are based, where appropriate, on average monthly expenditure over the three preceding years.2. Calculation method - Basic ruleThe approach involves establishing profiles by chapter on the basis of data for each item, as follows :a) expenditure over the three preceding years is adjusted as required to the budgetary nomenclature for the coming year;b) for each closed financial year, a profile in terms of accumulated percentages is calculated at the lowest budgetary level (item or article);c) the historical profile for each budget heading is the arithmetic mean of the percentage values for the corresponding months of each year;d) multiplying the percentage obtained by the appropriation amount for that heading for the year concerned gives, for each item, the amount of expenditure that can be considered normal at a given date;e) the indicator at the next level up is obtained by adding together the amounts at the constituent levels (chapter = sum of amounts under each item)The percentage these amounts represent in relation to the budget for each chapter gives the profile for that chapter. The profile therefore incorporates the distribution of expenditure at the lower levels (articles and items).Profiles should also reflect any payment deadlines that are set under the rules.3. Exceptions to the basic ruleAs a rule, profiles are calculated as described under point 2. However, a different approach has to be adopted in certain cases, in particular the following:a) when historical data for a given budget heading include factors of a strictly one-off nature the appropriate adjustments are made;b) when the data for a single year are felt to be more representative than the historical profile calculations are based on that data;c) when special circumstances (such as a new heading, changes in the rules or in payment deadlines) mean that historical data do not reflect the foreseeable pattern of expenditure under a budget heading a theoretical profile is established on the basis of working hypotheses that take account of the new situation;d) since, for the items concerning expenditure on public storage, end-of-year depreciation has a significant impact on the pattern of expenditure and, moreover, this depreciation fluctuates widely from year to year, this factor should be omitted when calculating the historical profile. The forecast depreciation for the 2000 budget will then be incorporated into the forecast expenditure for the last month of the year, giving the final profile for these budget headings;e) for the items dealing with recovery in the event of fraud or irregularity (which, by their nature, are difficult to forecast), the most representative method for calculating the profile is to distribute the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.These exceptions are explained below, item by item.Chapter 10 - Arable cropsB1-1040 - Aid for producers of maize (base area for maize)The 1997 profile contains anomalies and cannot, therefore, be used as a reference. The profile is based on the years 1998 and 1999.B1-1052 - Aid for producers of soya beans, colza seed and sunflower seedThe profile reflects the fact that it is no longer the practice to make advances and that the aid is disbursed between February and April.Chapter 12 - Olive oilB1-1210 - Production aidAs the Regulation has been amended, the profile is based solely on the historical profile of payments to large producers.B1-1230 - Technical costs of public storageB1-1231 - Financial costs of public storageB1-1232 - Other costs of public storageAs there are no more intervention purchases, the most representative method for calculating the profile is to distribute the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.B1-1239 - Other intervention in the form of storageAs this is a new measure, the most representative method for calculating the profile is to distribute the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.Chapter 14 - Fibre plantsB1-1410 - Aid for cottonAdvances paid in 1999 represented a higher proportion of total expenditure than in previous years - this year is therefore considered to be the most representative.Chapter 15 - Fruit and vegetablesThe reform of the market organisation entered into force in the financial year 1998 and for certain headings the historical profile cannot be taken into consideration.B1-1502 - Operational fund for producer organisationsAs this measure only commenced in 1997, the profile is based on the financial years 1998 and 1999.B1-1504 - Specific measuresIn the absence of any expenditure in 1997, the profile is based on the financial years 1998 and 1999.B1-1508 - BananasThe profile reflects the fact that most of the balance will be paid with the final advance.B1-1509 - Other interventionThe financial year 1997 contains expenditure relating to certain measures that no longer exist (transport costs from Greece). The financial years 1998 and 1999 are therefore the only years that may be deemed representative.B1-1514 - Production aid for tinned pineappleThe expenditure profile for 1997 differs so much from that for the other two years that it is not considered to be representative. The profile will therefore have to be based on the years 1998 and 1999.B1-1515 - Compensation to encourage processing of citrus fruitsFollowing an amendment of the legislation, the profile has to be recalculated from scratch.B1-1517 - Specific measuresAs this was first-time expenditure in 1998, and the 1999 expenditure contains anomalies, the profile for 2000 is calculated by distributing the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.Chapter 16 - Products of the vine-growing sectorB1-1611 - Distillation of wineThe financial year 1999 is the only year that records solely the pattern of payments made for preventive distillation. It is thus the only year that can be considered to be representative.B1-1620 - Technical costB1-1622 - Other costsThe expenditure profile for 1997 contains anomalies and cannot serve as a reference. The profile is therefore based on the data for 1998 and 1999.B1-1623 - Depreciation of stocksThe profile is calculated without reference to the financial year 1997, which cannot serve as a reference due to the declaration by Italy of large quantities of products that it had purchased in previous years.Chapter 17 - TobaccoB1-1710 - Premiums for tobaccoFollowing an amendment to the legislation, the profile reflects the fact that there are no more payments for the new harvest at the end of the financial year.B1-175 - Community fund for research and informationAs this heading concerns direct payments, the most representative method for calculating the profile is to distribute the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.Chapter 18 - Other plant sectors or productsB1-1810 - HopsThe financial year 1999 was the only one in which the new payment deadline (from 16.10 to 31.12) was taken into account, and must thus be regarded as the only representative year.B1-1850 - Refunds for riceSince the declarations made by certain Member States in the financial year 1998 contain errors, this year cannot serve as a reference. The profile is therefore based on the years 1997 and 1999.B1-1851 - Technical costs of public storage (rice)B1-1852 - Financial costs of public storage (rice)B1-1854 - Depreciation of stocksAs purchases only commenced at the end of 1997, the financial years 1998 and 1999 are the only ones which can be considered to be representative.B1-1853 - Other public storage costs (rice)As there are no valid historical data, the profile is established by distributing the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.B1-1858 - Per hectare aid for riceThis is a new measure that started in 1998 and the profile for it is therefore based solely on the financial years 1998 and 1999.Chapter 20 - Milk and milk productsB1-2014 - Depreciation of stocksThe 1997 profile contains anomalies and cannot serve as a reference. The profile is therefore based on the years 1998 and 1999.B1-2021 - Aid for liquid skimmed milk for use as feed for calvesAs this measure finishes at the end of 1999, the profile is calculated by distributing the total expenditure evenly over the November-April period.B1-2033 - Other storage costsThe expenditure profile for 1997 is so different from the other two years that it is not considered to be representative. The profile should therefore be based on the years 1998 and 1999.B1-2034 - Depreciation of stocksThe financial year 1998 cannot be used as a reference as it did not contain any purchases. The profile is therefore based on the years 1997 and 1999.B1-2071 - Additional levyThe profile is based on the financial year 1998: because of the payment deadline for the levy, this is the only year considered to be representative.Chapter 21 - Beef and vealB1-2113 - Other public storage costsThe profile reflects the higher volume of sales between October and December (50% of the total), with the balance distributed evenly over the other months.B1-2120 - Premiums for suckler cowsB1-2122 - Special premiums2000 will see the disbursal of an advance payment representing 60% of total expenditure, as in 1998. The profile is therefore based on the financial year 1998, the only year considered to be representative.B1-2123 - Deseasonalisation premiumsThe profile reflects the fact that, at the beginning of the financial year, expenditure will consist merely of residual payments, followed by a much lower level of outlay thereafter. Thus 75% of total expenditure will be incurred between November and February and 25% in the following months.B1-2127 - Obligatory selective slaughter programmeAs this is a new measure that started in 1997, the profile is based on the financial years 1998 and 1999, the only ones considered to be representative.Chapter 23 - Pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeatB1-2300 - Refunds on pigmeatThe profile is based on sales forecasts: around 25% of expenditure will fall in the initial three months of the financial year, with the remainder distributed equally over the other months.B1-2301 - Intervention for pigmeatAs the final quantities will be removed from stock in April 2000, the profile for 2000 is established by distributing the total expenditure evenly between November and June.Chapter 25 - Other animal product aid measuresB1-254 - Special aid for bee-keepingAs 1998 was the launch year for this measure, the profile is based solely on the financial year 1999.Chapter 30 - Refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural productsB1-3010 - Cereals and riceB1-3011 - Sugar and isoglucoseThe financial year 1998 contains declaration errors and cannot be considered to be representative. The profile is therefore based on the financial years 1997 and 1999.Chapter 31 - Food programmesB1-310 - Distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons in the CommunityDue to the late adoption of the plan for 2000, the profile for 1999 is considered to be the most representative indicator.Chapter 33 - Veterinary and plant health measuresB1-330 - Animal disease eradication and monitoring programmesB1-331 - Other measures in the veterinary fieldB1-332 - Funds for emergency veterinary measuresB1-333 - Plant health measuresDue to the lack of valid historical data, the balance of expenditure outstanding after the October-December period is distributed evenly over the months January to September.Chapter 36 - Monitoring & preventive measures concerning the eaggf guarantee sectionB1-3601 - Vineyard registerDue to the lack of historical data, the profile is established by distributing the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.B1-3602 - Other measuresThe profile reflects the fact that 100% of the expenditure must be declared in February 2000.Chapter 38 - Promotion measuresB1-381 - Direct payments by the European CommunityAs this heading concerns direct payments, the most representative method for calculating the profile is to distribute the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.B1-382 - Enhancing public awareness of the common agricultural policyDue to the lack of historical data, the profile is calculated by distributing the total expenditure evenly over the whole financial year.Chapter 39 - Other measuresB1-390 - Agrimonetary aidAs none of the profiles from previous years are valid for 2000, a profile has to be calculated from scratch.Chapter 40 - Rural developmentB1-4031 - Early retirement (former system, Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92)B1-4051 - Agri-environment (former system, Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92)B1-4072 - AfforestationB1-4090 - Old Regime before 1992The profile is constructed taking into consideration that most of expenditure will take place in the first months of the financial year.B1-400 - Investment in agricultural holdingsB1-401 - Setting-up of young farmersB1-402 - TrainingB1-4030 - Early retirement (new system)B1-404 - Less-favoured areasB1-4050 - Agri-environment (new system)B1-406 - Improving processing and marketing of agricultural productsB1-4070 - Forestry (new system, Article 31)B1-408 - Promoting the adaptation and development of rural areasB1-4091 - EvaluationAs these measures concern the new programming period (2000-2006), the profile is established taking into account that the expenditure will not take place before the approval of the programmes. Accordingly, the expenditure is distributed over the months from March to October.&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;* Month of payment from the Member States to the beneficiary.