Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - SAPARD annual Report - Year 2000
Date: 2001-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU aid, accession to the European Union, activity report, aid to agriculture, enlargement of the Union, rural development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 3.7.2001
COM(2001)341 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

SAPARD ANNUAL REPORT - Year 2000

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

SAPARD ANNUAL REPORT - Year 2000

Executive Summary

This is the first report produced by the Commission on the Special Accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development, SAPARD.

Using financial support from the Community budget amounting to over half a billion euro per
year in the period 2000 to 2006, SAPARD is to assist 10 applicant countries of central and
eastern Europe make structural improvements to their agricultural and rural environment. In
addition to primary agricultural production, projects to improve product processing,
marketing and quality are eligible for support, as are more general rural development
measures.

Support under SAPARD is to be granted on the basis of a single agriculture and rural
development programme per applicant country. The content of each programme reflects
priorities established by the national authorities, depending on the particular circumstances
and needs of their country, within limits set under the basic Council Regulation.

SAPARD programmes are to a large extent comparable with Member States' agriculture and
rural development programmes. The exercise of programming was entirely new for the
candidate country administrations who had to draw up those programmes. Nonetheless the
programmes for all 10 countries were ready and approved by the Commission in the autumn
of 2000.

Another implication flowing from the programme approach with SAPARD is that, unlike the
other pre-accession instruments PHARE and ISPA, where at
least some key points are
managed by the Commission, with SAPARD the Commission is not involved in any such key
points, not even project selection. For SAPARD an alternative approach was chosen, whereby
the national authorities in the applicant countries would assume entire responsibility through
fully “decentralised management”. This was done to enable the underlying objectives of the
SAPARD instrument to be realised. One is to implement numerous small scale projects, in
principle, throughout the rural areas of each country and the other to create structures which
will be capable also of applying the acquis immediately upon accession. However, this
approach required two major exercises to be accomplished before aid could be granted.

The first exercise was essentially regulatory. This exercise was needed because no
Community legislation is binding on any applicant country. Since Community money is
involved, an appropriate set of provisions covering all aspects relevant to the proper use,
control and accountability of funds had to be negotiated with the applicant countries, then set
out in bilateral international agreements with them. By the late autumn these negotiations had
been completed. That allowed signature of the agreements with the various countries to begin
already before the end of the year.

The other exercise required the establishment in each applicant country of an agency capable
of implementing SAPARD in a manner consistent with the legal provisions negotiated. By the

2

end of 2000 a considerable amount of work was accomplished by the applicant countries to
build their SAPARD agencies. However, no applicant country had a SAPARD agency ready
to receive funds and therefore no Community SAPARD monies could be transferred to any
applicant country by the year-end.

This report details the work done in 2000. It also describes certain developments in 2001
where they are closely linked to that work. This includes the observation that two applicant
countries have now received Community SAPARD funds and others are making significant
progress.

Readers of this report are invited to bear in mind that the SAPARD instrument involves
Community budget resources. Accountability for their use is crucial. SAPARD is also an
exercise in practical institution building, whereby organs in each applicant country are created
and given important management responsibilities, including that of accounting for these
resources. This work will be of inestimable value once the countries become Member States.
It is however a major task, because for all applicant countries both the concept and the
practice of granting public money to support the large number of investments envisaged under
SAPARD is unprecedented.

Overall the applicant countries made great strides in 2000 towards constructing systems
capable of managing the SAPARD instrument correctly. The Commission acknowledges the
enormous efforts made by a great number of people in each applicant country and their
continuing, dedicated, hard workto prepare for SAPARD to become operational, although in
certain cases these efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to allow SAPARD funds to flow before
end 2001.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3

1.

INTRODUCTION

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999, the "SAPARD Regulation"1,
requires the Commission to prepare an annual report. The report is to cover the
support granted and progress made towards achieving the objectives set out in
Article 1 of that Regulation. It is to be presented to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions.

The SAPARD Regulation is applicable as from 1 January 2000. By the end of 2000,
although support in terms of expenditure under the Regulation had not yet been
granted, a considerable amount of work had been accomplished to prepare for its
implementation in applicant countries. In view of this the Commission considers it
appropriate to present a report now for 2000. However, as this is the first report it is
not limited to 2000 but also covers events prior to that year. It furthermore includes
developments that occurred early in 2001 in instances where a cut-off at the end of
2000 would provide the reader with a truncated view. It is nonetheless intended that
the Report for 2001 will cover that entire year.

2.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

2.1.

Agenda 2000 policy on pre-accession

With the adoption of Agenda 2000, a new strategy for enlargement was established.
The objective was to open accession negotiations successively with the applicant
countries as they comply with the Copenhagen Criteria2. In addition the pre-
the Accession
accession strategy was reinforced with the establishment of
Partnerships and a substantial
increase in pre-accession assistance through the
introduction of two instruments, SAPARD and ISPA (Instrument for Structural
the pre-
policies for Pre-Accession). Furthermore,
accession instruments should be used to introduce the applicant countries to the
programme management procedures of the Structural Funds. Starting in 2000 the
pre-accession assistance made available in the Community budget more than doubled
to a total of 3.174 million euro per year (2000 prices) broken down as follows:
PHARE 1.587 million euro, ISPA 1.058 million euro and SAPARD 529 million
euro.

the strategy proposed that

2.2.

The SAPARD instrument - priorities and implementation

SAPARD's main priorities, as set out in the SAPARD Regulation are to contribute to
the implementation of the acquis concerning the Common Agricultural Policy and
related policies, and to solve priority and specific problems for the sustainable
adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries. To
achieve these objectives SAPARD, unlike PHARE and ISPA, specifically requires
each applicant country to draw up a development plan in accordance with the
rural
principles of

the programming approach used by Member States for

1

2

Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession
measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe
in the pre-accession period, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 87.
Agenda 2000 - For a stronger and wider Union, COM(97) 2000 of 15 July 1997.

4

development programmes. The plan can include up to 15 measures set out in the
SAPARD Regulation. Many are similar to those available to Member States under
Community co-financed agricultural and rural development programmes, a limited
number aim at building capacity to implement
the acquis such as improving
structures for quality, veterinary and plant health controls, setting up producer
groups, and land registers.

The implementation of SAPARD is based on two fundamental principles:

–

–

development for each applicant country of a programme for agriculture and
rural development covering the period 2000-2006 on the basis of the principles
applied under the Structural Funds,

conferral of management to the applicant countries on a fully decentralised
basis with ex-post control by the Commission based on the principles of
EAGGF Guarantee finance management.

SAPARD assists the applicant countries to gain practical experience in the
procedures and principles of
the system operating for Structural Fund rural
development programming in the Member States by imposing the following ground
rules:

–

–

–

–

–

the plan must be prepared by the competent authorities and submitted by the
applicant country only after the competent authorities and organisations at an
appropriate
the
partnership/consultation principles, which is central to the Structural Funds
system but innovative for countries of central and eastern Europe,

consulted.

promotes

level

been

have

This

the plans must be submitted to the Member States' STAR Committee (set up
under Regulation (EC) No 1260/19993) for opinion. This gives the applicant
countries first-hand experience of the Member States' direct involvement in
proposals for funding,

the approved programmes are multi-annual. This allows applicant countries to
gain practical experience in managing the progress of a programme and to
analyse and propose adjustments where necessary. In order to achieve this
effectively,
they gain practical experience in setting up management
information systems: collecting statistics, producing annual reports on the
programme and collating other relevant information,

the obligation to set up a monitoring committee promotes the idea of on-going
consultation and involvement of the relevant partners. It provides practical
experience in defining and operating monitoring indicators,

the obligation to carry out ex ante and mid-term evaluations of the programmes
give the applicant countries relevant practical experience.

3

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down the general provisions on the
Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

5

Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999,
the “Co-ordination
Regulation”4, lays down the provisions for the conferral of management, on the basis
of a case-by-case analysis, to agencies in each applicant country.

The conferral of management of SAPARD aid:

–

–

–

–

provides applicant countries with practical experience in setting-up financial
structures and control systems similar to those used in the Member States. The
setting-up of a paying agency based on specific criteria is a requirement both
for Guarantee-funded measures5 and Structural Funds6 systems. The accounts
must be independently certified. The objective of the exercise is to ensure
clearly defined responsibilities, transparency of operations and sound financial
management of Community assistance,

allows the applicant country to gain first-hand experience of the Commission
clearance of accounts and conformity clearance audits used for the Guarantee
fund in the Member States,

provides practical experience of reporting irregularities to the Commission,

provides practical experience in managing the initial advance and in submitting
to the Commission quarterly applications
in respect of
expenditure incurred. This is based on the system for Structural Funds in the
Member States,

for payments

–

requires the applicant country to take responsibility for expenditure.

3.

REGULATORY INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION

The SAPARD Regulation requires the Commission to adopt detailed rules for its
implementation. The first legislative initiative was to allocate the available financial
resources to each applicant country. These allocations are set out in Commission
Decision 1999/595/EC7, enacted by the Commission following the criteria set out in
Article 7(3) of the SAPARD Regulation. The rules relating to financial matters were
laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/20008. That act required
consultation of the Member States through the EAGGF-Committee (set up under

4

5

6

7

8

Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 of 21 June 1999 on co-ordinating aid to the applicant countries
in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89, OJ L 161,
26.6.1999, p. 68.
Commission Regulation (EC) 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the
EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control
systems for assistance granted under Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21.
Commission Decision 1999/595/EC of 20 July 1999 on the indicative allocation of the annual
Community financial contribution to pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development,
OJ L 226, 27.8 1999, p. 23.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 (cf. footnote 1), OJ L 253, 7.10.2000, p. 5.

6

Regulation (EC) No 1258/19999). For other matters, such as detailed rules for
measures in the programmes, consultation with the Member States was also required
involving the STAR Committee. The rules adopted are set out
in Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2759/199910.

During consideration of the plans submitted by applicant countries in the early
summer of 2000, it became evident that certain matters relating to the SAPARD
Regulation required further legislative initiatives to be taken by the Commission, in
addition to those foreseen in that Regulation. These initiatives were introduced as
modifications to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 through Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2356/200011.

3.1.

Commission Decision 1999/595/EC on the indicative allocation by beneficiary
country of the annual Community financial contribution

Article 11 of the SAPARD Regulation requires the Commission to allocate the
available resources to the applicant countries, and to communicate its Decision to
each of them. Article 7(3) of the same Regulation stipulates that
the financial
allocation must be based on farming population, agricultural area, gross domestic
product per capita in purchasing power parity and specific territorial situation.

The indicative allocation by beneficiary country of the maximum amount of the
annual Community financial contribution was set out in the Annex to Decision
1999/595/EC of 20 July 1999. The amounts, expressed in constant 1999 prices, are
indicated in the table below. The Commission considered that although each of the
four criteria in Article 11 of the SAPARD Regulation were relevant it would not
have been appropriate to give equal weight to each of them. Thus, 90% of the total
allocation was calculated taking account of the agricultural area weighted by 65%
and the farming population weighted by 35%. The resulting figures were then
adjusted with the deviation for each country's GDP from the average of the GDP in
all 10 countries (expressed in purchasing power parity). The allocation of the
remaining 10% was based on the specific territorial situation. This was determined
taking account of the length of each country's land border with third countries
(including countries eligible under SAPARD), plus 20% of coast length.

9

10

11

Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural
policy, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 of 22 December 1999 laying down rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession
measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe
in the pre-accession period, OJ L 331, 23.12.1999, p. 51.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2356/2000 of 24 October 2000 amending Regulation (EC)
No 2759/1999 (cf. footnote 10), OJ L 272, 25.10.2000, p. 13.

7

INDICATIVE ALLOCATION BY BENEFICIARY COUNTRY
OF THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1999 PRICES

Country

Amount (in euro )

Hungary

Latvia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Lithuania

Slovakia

Poland

Estonia

Romania

TOTAL

38 054 000

21 848 000

6 337 000

52 124 000

22 063 000

29 829 000

18 289 000

168 683 000

12 137 000

150 636 000

520 000 000

3.2.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 on rules for managing the
programmes

Following the opinion of the STAR Committee, the Commission adopted Regulation
(EC) No 2759/1999 on the detailed rules for the application of SAPARD on
22 December 1999.

In general terms the Regulation follows the provisions on Community aid for rural
development
in the Member States, as defined in Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/199912 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/199913.

The specific situation and the priority needs of the applicant countries gave rise to a
situation where some of the measures currently eligible in Member States are not
eligible under SAPARD. Consequently, measures for the setting-up of young
farmers, early retirement and Less Favoured Areas are not applicable under
SAPARD.

Where they differ from those for Member States the Regulation specifies conditions
under which aid can be granted, i.e.:

–

Investment in agricultural holdings: holdings need to comply with national
minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare at
the time when the decision to grant support is taken. If minimum standards in

12

13

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain
Regulations, OJ L160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules on the
application of Council Regulation (EC.) No 1257/1999 (cf. footnote 12), OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31.

8

–

–

–

–

respect of those aspects have been newly introduced at national level, and are
required under the acquis, the holdings need to respect them by the end of the
realisation of the investment.

Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery
products: because there is no specific pre-accession financial instrument for
fisheries, support for the processing and marketing of fisheries is covered by
this Regulation and so differs from the provisions of Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 for Member States. The raw materials to be supported must
originate in applicant countries or the Community (later modified to allow raw
materials from third countries, see also point 3.3).

Agri-environment: as such actions shall have the objective of developing
practical
both
agri-environmental
administrative and farm levels these concern pilot actions only, unlike for
Member States.

implementation

experience

of

at

Producer groups: this measure does not exist for Member States in the present
programming period14. However, due to the specific needs of applicant
countries, it is included in the SAPARD Regulation.

Forestry: applicant countries may benefit from this measure on a basis similar
to Member States, except for restoring forestry production potential damaged
by natural disasters and fire. Furthermore, for afforestation of agricultural
areas, the annual premium per hectare to cover loss of income (permitted for
Member States) is not eligible under SAPARD.

the
The Regulation also covers some aspects of eligibility of expenditure,
establishment of a managing authority, requirements for monitoring indicators as
well as for annual and final reports, and for evaluation of the programmes. It also
establishes that further detailed conditions for aid will be laid down in bilateral
agreements between the Commission and each applicant country.

3.3.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2356/2000 amending Regulation (EC)
No 2759/1999

The matters addressed in Regulation (EC) No 2356/2000 relate mainly to Article 8 of
the SAPARD Regulation. That article sets limits on Community support in relation
to public expenditure. It also deals, in part, with aid intensities. It reads as follows:

“Article 8, Rate of Community contribution

1. The Community contribution may amount to up to 75% of the total eligible public
expenditure.

For measures referred to in the last
indent of Article 2 and Article 7(4), the
Community contribution to financing may amount to up to 100% of the total eligible
cost.

14

However, under certain Commission regulations on the common organisation of the markets, aid is
possible for producer groups.

9

2. For revenue generating investments, public aid may amount to up to 50% of the
total eligible cost of which the Community contribution may amount to up to 75%. In
any case the Community contribution shall comply with the ceilings on rates of aid
and cumulation laid down for State aid.

3. The financial support and the payments shall be expressed in euro”.

Three problems were noted with the Article. These required attention if they were
not to cause difficulties for various initiatives provided for in several of the plans
submitted by applicant countries.

First, the definition of a “revenue generating” investment. The text of paragraph 2 of
Article 8 at least implied that if the investment generates any revenue, it is revenue-
generating. The aid intensity for such investments under that Regulation is limited to
a maximum 50% of total eligible costs.

In the absence of any further legal clarification examples of revenue-generating
investments could have included infrastructure whenever user fees were applied,
such as marketing centres or village water supply systems. The option of not
charging user fees on such projects so as to avoid generating revenue would have
been economically irrational (and in the case of the water example cited would risk
being contrary to Community environmental policy). The reference to revenue-
generating investments in the Regulation therefore had potentially major undesirable
consequences for various measures.

Second, was the issue of how to deal with the concept of public aid when the
beneficiary is in the public sector. A peculiar situation could have arisen under the
SAPARD Regulation in cases where the investment is revenue-generating and the
beneficiary is in the public sector.

The reason for this was that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the SAPARD
Regulation, the Community contribution is a function of the public aid (not public
expenditure as in its paragraph 1). When the beneficiary is public it is easy to
identify the level of public expenditure but not the level of public aid.

Unqualified application of that provision might have resulted in a refusal to co-
finance any revenue generating investment where the beneficiary is public on the
grounds that the expenditure is all aid and so exceeds the limit of 50% of total
eligible cost set by the Council.

Third, does “public aid” in paragraph 2 of Article 8 also refer to aid granted
independent of SAPARD? To avoid misunderstanding, it was imperative to know
whether “public aid” refers only to that granted under SAPARD or also to any
granted independent of
instrument. The issue had significant practical
implications because many of the plans submitted by applicant countries envisaged
aid intensities for SAPARD support alone, which were already at the 50% limit set in
the SAPARD Regulation.

this

The Commission considered the above points and concluded that they all needed to
be addressed through a legislative proposal. That proposal defined revenue-
generating investments as all investments except those in infrastructure, which do not
generate substantial net revenue. This definition, inspired by Council Regulation

10

(EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,
addressed the first two of the problems mentioned above. The third problem was
tackled by defining public aid as all such aid whether or not granted under the
programme. The proposal with these components was submitted to the STAR
Committee, along with two other essentially technical adjustments to Regulation
(EC) No 2759/1999. One adjustment concerned investment in fish processing, to
allow aid even if the raw material originated in third countries (as is permitted for
Member States); the other removed exclusion of aid for second-hand equipment.
Both of these points had likewise been identified in work associated with the plans.
The proposal, tackling all five of the above issues, was the subject of a unanimous
vote in the STAR Committee, and the resulting Regulation (EC) No 2356/2000 was
adopted by the Commission on 24 October 2000.

3.4.

Communication to the Commission (financial rules)

3.4.1.

Background

Within the framework of Agenda 2000, the Council decided that the SAPARD
instrument should be implemented in accordance with the two Regulations (EC)
No 1266/1999 and (EC) No 1268/1999 (the Co-ordination Regulation for PHARE,
ISPA and SAPARD, and the SAPARD Regulation). The respective financial
management rules of these Regulations needed to be reconciled with Title IX of the
Financial Regulation - external aid rules,
the SAPARD Regulation, and the
Co-ordination Regulation.

3.4.2. Decentralised management

–

–

–

The SAPARD Regulation provides that the financial support shall comply with
the principles of EAGGF (Guarantee and Guidance Fund). The Regulation also
includes references to compliance with provisions of Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999, which lays down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

The standard external aid provisions of the Financial Regulation (Title IX)
foresee only systems with key points managed by the Commission, in contrast
to the decentralised EAGGF (Guarantee and Guidance Fund) and Structural
Fund systems provided for
the former, projects
implemented by applicant countries would be subject to ex ante approval by
the Commission (currently the case for PHARE and ISPA); under the latter,
applicant countries would act autonomously and would be responsible for
correct execution and at least the initial control over payments.

in SAPARD. Under

Article 11 of the Co-ordination Regulation states that the Commission shall
implement the Community aid in accordance with the provisions for external
aid defined under Title IX of the Financial Regulation. Article 12(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 provides that project selection, tendering and
contracting shall be subject to ex ante approval by the Commission. However,
Article 12(2) of that Regulation provides that the Commission may, under
certain circumstances, waive the ex ante approval requirement and confer on
implementing agencies in applicant countries management of aid on a
decentralised basis.

11

–

The SAPARD instrument
is expected to generate a large number of
applications and require management of a substantial number of projects. As
with all agricultural and rural development programmes such projects are
generally relatively small because of the size of the beneficiary enterprises.
from the Commission to the
Consequently, delegation of management
applicant countries is not only required in order to achieve the objectives of the
Regulation but is also a practical necessity. Well over 1000 national officials in
the applicant countries are expected to be employed in running SAPARD.

3.4.3. Communication to the Commission

In order to create a system that would reconcile EAGGF rules with those for external
to seek
aid, the Commission did consider returning to Council and Parliament
amendment of the relevant legal bases. However, this option could have proved very
lengthy so, after considering the various legal possibilities, a more straightforward
and timely alternative was approved by the Commission. This is set out in the
Communication to the Commission of 26 January 200015.

The Commission concluded in its consideration of the Communication that such
delegation of tasks is legally possible by applying Article 12(2) of the Co-ordination
Regulation. This provision allows the conferral of management
tasks normally
executed by the Commission to implementing agencies under the responsibility of
the applicant country, provided there is respect of the particular conditions laid down
in that Regulation.

3.4.4.

The financial management system adopted for SAPARD

The management system agreed by the Commission in the Communication was in
line both with the principles of EAGGF-Guarantee and the relevant external aid
provisions of the Financial Regulation, as well as the appropriate rules reflecting the
programming and payments system of the Structural Funds. Its implementation had
the major advantage of avoiding the risk of re-opening the conclusions of the Berlin
European Council, which had set the overall framework within which SAPARD was
to operate. It also minimised the risk of complicating and so further delaying the start
of the SAPARD instrument. Moreover the system agreed had the advantage of
helping to prepare the applicant countries for accession. It is based on a decentralised
approach with three main characteristics:

An accredited SAPARD implementing/paying agency, to be established by
1)
each applicant country. The SAPARD agencies should be organised in conformity
with the EAGGF Guarantee provisions. The National Fund (entity within the
Ministry of Finance, already installed for PHARE financial management) should be
the competent authority for the accreditation of the SAPARD agency.

The Commission is to verify the accreditation of the SAPARD agency on the spot.
the
Only if
implementing/paying agency, can the management and payment tasks be delegated
from the Commission to the applicant country and the working capital transferred to

the Commission shares

the National Fund’s

appraisal of

15

SEC(2000) 97 of 19 January 2000.

12

that country. Only expenditure carried out on the basis of decentralised management
through SAPARD agencies may be eligible for Community financing.

2)
A payment system based on differentiated appropriations. The rules of Title IX
of the Financial Regulation make it necessary that SAPARD appropriations be
differentiated. Differentiated appropriations are those with separate commitment and
payment appropriations. Commitment appropriations cover the total cost of the legal
obligations entered into in a given year for operations whose implementation extends
over more than one financial year. The subsequent charging of the commitment as a
payment within a determined time limit is similar to the system of Structural Funds.

A clearance of accounts procedure. Article 12(2) of

3)
the Co-ordination
Regulation provides for the execution of ex post controls by the Commission. The
EAGGF clearance of accounts procedure is an efficient system to audit payments of
the decentralised agencies and, if necessary, to recover irregular or undue payments
from the applicant countries. Audits and controls would therefore be executed in
accordance with the EAGGF Guarantee provisions. These foresee a clearance
procedure in two steps:

–

–

the annual clearance of accounts decision determines the amount of
expenditure effected by the SAPARD agency during the preceding financial
year, which shall be recognised as being chargeable to SAPARD,

without prejudice to the clearance of accounts decision, the Commission may
at a later stage exclude expenditure from financing when it considers that
expenditure was not effected according to the SAPARD rules (conformity
clearance decision).

The determination of financial corrections would also follow EAGGF Guarantee
rules, for example:

–

–

the application of flat-rate corrections in cases where controls have not been
correctly established or executed by the SAPARD agency,

the refusal to compensate the foreseen financial correction with expenditure
made for other projects.

3.5.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 on financial rules

A key Commission instrument for the implementation of SAPARD is Regulation
(EC) No 2222/2000. Drafting of that instrument required careful consideration in
order to set out in detail the results of the reconciliation of the requirements of both
the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation concerning external aid and those
of complying with the principles laid down for EAGGF and Structural Funds, as
required by the SAPARD Regulation. The Regulation would then form the basis of a
multi-annual agreement to be negotiated and concluded with each applicant country
in order to bind each country to the rules required by the Community.

3.5.1. Drafting the Regulation

A first major step in the process was to set out the details of the Commission policy
on the basis of the Communication adopted by the College on 26 January 2000 (see
point 3.4).

13

In laying down the financial rules governing the decentralised management system,
the Commission decided to introduce certain adjustments to the guidelines devised in
January. The regulation thus provides that the signature of the Annual Financing
Agreement shall give rise to the commitment of the appropriations. The approval of
the accreditation of the paying agencies became, more appropriately, only a pre-
requisite for the delegation of management and the transfer of funds. In effect,
subordinating the commitment to the delegation of management decision would have
resulted in an unreasonable requirement
for applicant countries without a
corresponding benefit for the Community. Against this background the Commission
analysed the options open to it. The conclusion was that an evolution in the position
set out in the Communication would be justified so that the commitment of funds for
2000 could be made independent of its decision on conferring management of aid.

3.5.2. Consultation with the applicant countries on the financial rules

innovation in the negotiations on the Multi-annual
An important procedural
Financing Agreement was to forward the draft Regulation to each applicant country
for comment in advance of its adoption. This was done after the draft was presented
for the first
time to a special EAGGF Committee meeting on 2 May. The
Commission undertook to take account of any comments received from the applicant
countries, provided they were compatible with the financial arrangements of the
Community and did not weaken the underlying structure of the text, in particular as
regards sound financial management.

3.5.3.

Adoption of the Regulation

A draft of the Regulation was prepared in March. As the text in many respects
involved novel concepts this was a complex exercise. However, the draft Regulation
was the subject of preliminary discussions with Member States in the EAGGF
committee already on 18 April 2000. To expedite work on the draft a special meeting
of the committee took place on 2 May 2000 and a further meeting on 22 May 2000.
The Regulation was the subject of a unanimous vote in the EAGGF Committee and
was adopted by the Commission on 7 June 2000. It was decided not to publish it
immediately, so as to respect the need for negotiation of the Multi-annual Financing
Agreement with the applicant countries. The Regulation was published (as adopted)
on 7 October 2000, namely when the negotiations had been substantially concluded.

3.6.

The Multi-annual Financing Agreement

3.6.1.

Purpose of the Multi-annual Financing Agreement

As Community legislation is not binding on applicant countries, it was necessary to
draw up bilateral agreements with each applicant country in order have a legal
framework binding the Community and each applicant country to the rules for
implementing SAPARD. In addition, Title IX on external aid rules of the Financial
Regulation, the SAPARD Regulation and the Co-ordination Regulation for pre-
accession assistance all provide that a financing agreement shall be drawn up
between the Commission, acting for the Community, and the government of the
recipient State.

14

3.6.2. Content of the Multi-annual Financing Agreement

The Multi-annual Financing Agreement lays down the Community management and
control rules for SAPARD for the duration of the programme, namely 2000-2006. It
is based on Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 and enshrines the three principles
outlined in the Commission’s Communication of 26 January 2000, namely:

–

–

–

full decentralisation of programme management to an agency established under
the responsibility of each applicant country,

financing arrangements based on differentiated appropriations;,

the application of the EAGGF Guarantee Section Clearance of Accounts
procedure.

In addition, it provides rules for an advance and payment system similar to the
Structural Funds system, as well as specific requirements for monitoring committees,
management and evaluation of the programme and reporting, also similar to the
Structural Funds system. The Agreement also provides for reporting irregularities
and access by Community officials to documents and projects.

3.6.3.

Summary of sections

The Agreement consists of seven sections, as follows:

Section A: Financial Management. This section lays down the detailed provisions
for the execution of SAPARD on a decentralised basis in each applicant country,
reflecting to a large extent the Financial Implementing Regulation adopted by the
Commission in early June following a unanimous vote in the EAGGF Committee.

Section B: Management, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Programme. This
section details the monitoring and evaluation requirements necessary to determine
the effectiveness and efficiency of the component parts of the agricultural and rural
development programmes.

Section C: General Provisions. Details issues such as co-ordination with other pre-
accession financial instruments (PHARE and ISPA), taxation and customs, import
and export rules.

Section D: Quarterly and Annual Declarations of Expenditure. This section
details the forms to be completed and the rules to be respected in the declaration of
expenditure on a quarterly and annual basis.

Section E: Guidelines for Certifying Body. This section sets out the form, scope
and contents of the certificate and report of the body performing the certification of
the SAPARD agency.

Section F: Text of Community legislation referred to in Regulation (EC)
No 2222/2000 on financial rules for SAPARD adapted for the Agreement. This is
a technical section that spells out in full the wording of the relevant Community
legislation referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 not already taken account of
in the other sections of the Agreement but adapted to fit
the circumstances of
SAPARD.

15

Section G: Dispute settlement. This section details the procedure to be followed for
recourse to an arbitration tribunal, in the event of a dispute.

3.7.

The Annual Financing Agreement

3.7.1.

Purpose of the Annual Financing Agreement

The Annual Financing Agreement for 2000 sets out the financial commitment of the
Community for each applicant country eligible for assistance under SAPARD. An
Annual Financing Agreement will be drawn up and negotiated with each of the
applicant countries for each year of the programme. It sets out the annual financial
commitment of the Community and, where necessary, will amend provisions of the
Multi-annual Financing Agreement.

3.8.

Negotiation of the Multi-annual and Annual Financing Agreements

Adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000, setting out the financial rules, opened
the way for the Commission to draft and then to negotiate a Multi-annual Financing
Agreement with each of the 10 applicant countries. As stated previously,
the
applicant countries were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed financial
rules before their adoption. The need for that negotiation was explicitly recognised in
the Regulation where its Article 1(2) reads “the Commission intends to require the
applicant countries to respect [the conditions in the Regulation] by including them in
financing agreements negotiated with each country”. The Regulation in itself could
not suffice, as no Community legislation is applicable in any third country. During
the negotiations a number of detailed points not covered in the Regulation also arose
and were incorporated in the texts negotiated.

3.8.1. Ministerial meeting

To set the negotiations on course, a two-day ministerial level meeting was held in
Brussels on 6-7 June 2000, attended by Ministers from all 10 countries. That meeting
had two main components: an exchange of views at an essentially political level and
explanations given by the Commission, Article by Article, of the very recently
adopted Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000. Applicant countries were also encouraged
in the forum to put forward their views on any aspect of the Regulation.

3.8.2. Workshop launching the negotiations

A first draft of the Multi-annual Agreement was prepared in July, reflecting the
thrust of the Regulation and the June negotiations. In view of the need for the
document to be negotiated with each applicant country it was forwarded to them as a
draft. This was prior to holding a meeting in Brussels, on 27 July, attended by
representatives of all applicant countries. As previously,
their views were also
solicited on that occasion. As a result, a revised draft agreement was sent to applicant
countries on 3 August, reflecting the work of that meeting.

3.8.3.

Inter-service consultations

As an indicator of the complexity and importance of the text of the Agreement,
16 Directorates-General were involved in the inter-service consultation process.
Negotiations continued on the basis of drafts revised to take account of comments
received (see Annex 2 for a fuller picture). After every inter-service consultation, a

16

new draft was circulated to the applicant countries. In total, four such drafts were
issued. The Commission managed to forward revised texts within four weeks of the
deadline set for comments by applicant countries. On each version, and with the
exception of only one country on one occasion, every country had numerous
comments calling for re-drafting.

The negotiation of the Multi-annual Agreement involved the active participation of
all applicant countries and the Commission. The entire exercise, from discussion
with the applicant countries on the first draft to finalisation of the text, took just four
months.

3.8.4. Complexity of the process

Because of the wide range of issues addressed, the process inevitably involved many
participants in the various applicant countries. The different approaches and
preferences of each country understandably affected it. In an attempt to facilitate the
exercise, numerous bilateral meetings and exchanges also took place.

It was a process that entailed a large degree of novelty both of concept and of
detailed drafting. To give an example, careful consideration had to be given to the
compatibility of the provision that,
in the event of recourse to an arbitration
procedure, the tribunal set up under the Agreement would take account of relevant
case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The wording had to
be crafted to avoid the risk that it might conflict with the constitutional provisions of
at least one country.

Taking a more technical example, the issue of definition of eligible expenditure had
to be addressed. Unlike Member States, applicant countries generally have, at most,
only rudimentary State aid provisions. Consequently it was not possible to use the
relatively simple option of building eligibility rules for applicant countries based on
their national provisions, as is provided for in the Structural Funds Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (Article 30(3)).

Furthermore, as Community legislation is not binding on applicant countries, it was
not appropriate in the Agreement merely to indicate references, for example, articles
of Community legislation, which would be the case when drafting regulations. It was
necessary to examine all relevant references to Community legislation in the
legislative framework (SAPARD Regulation, Co-ordination Regulation, Regulation
(EC) No 2759/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000) and to insert the actual text
of the relevant provisions into the Agreement, adapted accordingly.

3.8.5.

Procedural context

The negotiation process could not be done in isolation from other developments. It
could not precede the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 on the financial
rules, which in turn had to await the outcome of the complex of issues addressed in
the Communication of 26 January 2000. It could likewise not precede the completion
of the work leading up to adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2356/2000 (see point 3.3).

Equally importantly the work needed to take account of the process of setting-up
SAPARD agencies, as well as the contents of the various agricultural and rural
development programmes.

17

Despite the number of detailed changes made during the negotiations of the Multi-
annual Agreement, the key components of the document remained intact throughout.
In this way the substance of Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 was respected.

3.8.6.

Adoption of the text of the Multi-annual Financing Agreement

On 29 November 2000, the Commission approved the final version of the text of the
Multi-annual Agreement. To assist those countries that were most anxious to make
rapid progress an unofficial version was forwarded to each applicant country on
November 10 but with the provision that it in no way pre-judged the position of the
Commission. This procedure was employed to enable early consideration of the draft
agreement in applicant countries.

Several countries indicated their willingness to sign the Multi-annual (and Annual)
Agreements by the end of 2000. On 18 December the Multi-annual Agreement with
Bulgaria was signed, thus permitting the national authorities to begin the process of
ratification. By the end of March 2001 all 10 applicant countries had signed both
agreements.

3.8.7.

The signing of the Annual Agreement for 2000 and commitment of the allocation

The Annual Agreement is a simple document. Its content was limited to defining, for
each country, the level of Community financial commitments made in the 2000
budget. There was however no practical pressure or need to sign the annual
agreements already in 2000. The reason for this was that the Commission, having
approved the Multi-annual Agreement, and having authorised the Member of the
Commission to sign each agreement, made a global budgetary commitment for the
amounts determined for 2000. That decision constituted a budgetary commitment for
all ten countries within the meaning of Article 36(2) of the Financial Regulation.
Thereafter, and on the same basis, the corresponding individual legally binding
commitments could be effected by 31 December 2001. This action also removed
pressure from any applicant country to agree rapidly to the Multi-annual Agreement.
This would have been the case had agreement been needed to avoid loss of
appropriations due from the 2000 budget allocation.

3.8.8.

Period of commitment

The Annual Agreement for 2000 provides that any part of the commitment for 2000
which has not been the subject of a payment on account shall be decommitted by
31 December 2002 if an acceptable payment application has not been received before
the end of the second year following the year of commitment.

4.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING TO PREPARE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAPARD

4.1.

Commission initiatives

A number of technical assistance actions have been undertaken to help prepare for
SAPARD implementation. The most important of these has been the PHARE Special
Programme for Preparation for the Structural Funds (SPP) established under the 1998
PHARE programme. The purpose of this programme is to initiate preparations for
implementation of Community Structural Funds from accession. These preparations

18

include drafting of national development plans and building institutional capacity for
Structural Fund management.

Assistance to prepare for the implementation of SAPARD (and ISPA), as well as the
economic and social cohesion dimension of the PHARE programme, is included in
the SPP because these instruments are considered to be precursors for the application
of the Structural Funds. The total amount allocated to the programme since 1998 is
56 million euro, of which approximately 25 million euro is attributable to preparing
for the implementation of SAPARD.

Under PHARE, technical assistance related to SAPARD includes:

–

–

–

–

twinning projects on the preparation of the rural development plans for
SAPARD and elaboration of implementation procedures,

twinning projects on preparing the accreditation of SAPARD agencies. These
projects have involved help with the design of application forms and control
checklists; training in payment procedures under SAPARD; elaboration of
book-keeping procedures; setting-up the internal control system; on-the-spot
and ex post control systems; procurement procedures and risk-evaluation
methodology,

SPP technical assistance involving the preparation of ex ante evaluation related
It also involved the
to the agriculture and rural development plans.
development of systems for information, monitoring and control, training of
officials and study visits
the preparation of development plans,
administrative procedures and financial management,

for

SPP rural pilot projects for preparing the administration and procedures for
implementing the programmes, training of administrative staff, advisors and
beneficiaries as well as preparations for evaluation, financing and control.

The Commission also arranged a seminar for officials from the applicant countries
on the Multi-annual Agreement. Furthermore, study visits to Member States by
officials from applicant countries were arranged.

4.2.

Other assistance

SIGMA Support for Improvement in Governance and Management in central
and eastern European countries - a joint
initiative of the OECD and the
Community combining OECD and PHARE resources to assist the central and eastern
European countries build financial management and control systems. This initiative
has provided valuable assistance to Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland,
Romania and the Slovak Republic in setting up and preparing for accreditation of the
SAPARD agencies.

Assistance from international financial instruments. The World Bank has carried
out preparatory work for loans to the agricultural and rural sectors in some of the
applicant countries (Bulgaria, Poland and Romania).

Many Member States have provided valuable bilateral assistance to various
applicant countries without recourse to Community budgetary resources but often at
the request of the Commission. Although the Commission does not have a complete

19

picture, this assistance was widespread and also made a contribution to the setting up
of the SAPARD agencies. That assistance included carrying out ex ante evaluation
and ad-hoc assistance to enable administrations to take on new tasks, for example,
environmental impact assessments.

5.

FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY ISSUES

5.1.

Budgetary allocations in the budget 2000

At the Berlin summit on 24 and 25 March 1999, the European Council concluded
that expenditure for
ISPA and
SAPARD) should be entered in separate sub-headings under a new heading 7 in the
financial perspective.

the three pre-accession instruments (PHARE,

The annual ceiling for the agricultural pre-accession instrument was fixed at a
constant level throughout the period 2000-2006, not exceeding 520 million euro at
1999 prices. This amount was subsequently included in the financial perspectives
2000-2006, annexed to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on
budgetary discipline.

The Budgetary authority classified heading 7 as non-compulsory expenditure and
differentiated appropriations (see point 3.4.4, item 2).

5.2.

Budgetary allocation for assistance at the initiative of the Commission

Article 7(4) of the SAPARD Regulation authorises the Commission to devote up to
2% of the annual allocation of funds over the whole period of the programme to
finance certain assistance measures taken on its own initiative. This provision was
reflected in the 2000 budget by creating one SAPARD budget line for the financing
of programmes (Article B7-010) and a line (Article B7-010A) for expenditure on this
assistance.

SAPARD budgetary allocations for commitments in the 2000 budget were set at
529 million euro of which 519.1 million euro was for the programme line B7-010,
and 9.9 million euro for the assistance line B7-010A. Allocations for payments were
190.1 million euro for the budget line B7-010 and 9.9 million euro for the line
B7-010A.

5.3.

Transfer of funds from assistance budget line to the programme budget line

Year 2000 was mainly spent preparing the legal framework allowing SAPARD to be
applied on a decentralised basis, and approving the programmes for agriculture and
rural development on the basis of plans presented by the 10 applicant countries (see
sections 3 and 6). These activities did not give rise to the need for assistance in the
four eligible areas (preliminary studies, exchange visits, evaluations and controls)
provided for in article 7(4) of the SAPARD Regulation.

As a consequence the Commission proposed the transfer of 9.8 million euro from the
assistance line B7-010A to the Programme line B7-010 (an amount of 100 000 euro
was left to cover possible requirements, for example, a meeting of all applicant
countries in Brussels). This transfer was adopted by the Budgetary Authority and
enabled the amount concerned to be included in the Annual Financing Agreements

20

for 2000, and so reinforcing (using the same distribution key as for the global
amount) the Community finance available for each of the agriculture and rural
development programmes.

5.4.

Use of funds

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 states that the Commission
Decision authorising signature of each Annual Financing Agreement gives rise to
commitment of the appropriations in the Community budget. As stated earlier, a
global commitment was made once the Commission adopted the texts of the Multi-
annual and Annual Agreements and the Member of the Commission had been
authorised, on 29 November 2000, to sign the Multi-annual and Annual Financing
Agreements. The corresponding individual commitment of the Commission to
finance each country's SAPARD programme (signature of the corresponding Annual
Financing Agreement) could only be entered into after the programme had been
approved and both parties signed the Multi-annual Financing Agreement.

The provision for global commitment in Article 36(2) of the Financial Regulation
allows the Commission to commit the whole amount available for 2000, and set up
the individual commitment for each country before the end of 2001. In fact, the 10
individual commitments were effected before the end of February and the 10 Annual
Financing Agreements were signed before the end of March 2001.

As explained in section 7, one condition for SAPARD to be operational is that the
Commission has decided to confer management of aid to each of the applicant
countries. By the end of 2000 no such decisions had been taken as no national
decisions to accredit any SAPARD agency had been concluded sufficiently soon to
permit such a Commission decision. Therefore, no Community SAPARD funds had
been transferred to any applicant country.

SAPARD financial execution in 2000 (in euro) can be summarised as follows:

Heading

Appropriation

Budget 2000

Transfers

Executed

Carried over

Cancelled

Commitment

519 100 000

+9 800 000

528 900 000

0

B7-010

Payment

190 100 000

-50 000 000

Commitment

9 900 000

-9 800 000

B7-10A

Payment

9 900 000

0

0

0

0

5.5.

Budgetary overview for the year 2001

0

0

140 100 000

0

0

100 000

9 900 000

During the year 2000 the Budgetary Authority determined the amounts to be
allocated to SAPARD in the 2001 budget.

The total amount of 540 million euro available for commitment in 2001 is the result
of the technical adjustment of the amount of 520 million euro at constant 1999
prices, as foreseen in the financial perspectives. It has been divided between the main

21

line B7-010, which receives 530.28 million euro and the “administrative” line with
9.72 million euro.

The “administrative” line also receives 9.72 million euro payments appropriations.

In spite of the difficulty of financial forecasts, which at best can be based on
hypotheses as there are no relevant precedents, the need for payment appropriations
in 2001 under the main line B7-010 has been estimated at around 500 million euro. It
was assumed that half of this amount would be paid as an advance after the
Commission Decision conferring management of aid to the SAPARD agencies, and
half as co-financing of expenditure resulting from the implementation of the
programmes during 2001. The Budgetary Authority accepted the carry-over of
140.1 million euro of payment appropriations not used in 2000 and authorised
321.08 million euro of fresh payment appropriations in the 2001 budget.

6.

PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE SAPARD PROGRAMMES

The applicant countries were invited to draw up their plans for agriculture and rural
development, selecting measures which reflect particular national circumstances.
Plans were required to be submitted within six months of the entry into force of the
SAPARD Regulation, namely by 29 December 1999. All the applicant countries,
except the Czech Republic16, submitted their plans within this deadline. All plans
needed to provide additional information before the Commission was able to declare
each of the revised plans admissible, which it did during April and May 2000.

The preparatory phase included consultations of economic, social and environmental
partners, as provided for in Article 4(2) of the SAPARD Regulation.

The SAPARD Regulation also provides that the programmes shall be approved
within six months of the date of their submission, on condition that all relevant
information has been provided. This is the normal time period provided for Member
States’ agricultural and rural development plans.

The Commission approved the SAPARD programmes for each of the applicant
countries between October and December 2000. It thus took no longer to establish
the SAPARD programmes than for Member States' plans, despite the latter’s
considerable experience in drawing up plans and the fact that this was a new exercise
for each of the applicant countries (see Annex 3).

Before being approved by 10 specific Commission Decisions, all plans were
presented to the STAR Committee, where each was given an unanimously positive
from each applicant country were present during the
opinion. Delegations
Committee's discussions on their respective plans.

16

The Czech Republic officially requested, and was granted, an extension of the legal deadline of
29.12.1999 to 31.1.2000.

22

6.1.

Programme contents

Although the balance between measures differs from programme to programme,
three measures are dominant in virtually all of them: processing and marketing,
investment in agricultural holdings, and investment in rural infrastructure.

Taking all countries together, public aid for investment in processing and marketing
leads with 26% of the total Community contribution17, followed by investment in
agricultural holdings and investment in rural infrastructure, each at just over 20%.
Next comes diversification of activities with around 11%. Of the nine other measures
in the programmes, none of them averages more than 4% of the total. Even though
the agri-environment measure is not obligatory under SAPARD and only concerns
pilot implementation, unlike for Member States rural development programmes, all
applicant countries except Slovenia have included this measure in their programmes.
It can also be noted that
i.e. setting up farm relief and farm
management services, and the measure on establishment and updating of land
registers, have not been included in any of the programmes (see Annex 4).

two measures,

All of the figures in Annex 4 (and in this description) need to be read bearing in mind
that for every programme there is a provision permitting a certain degree of
flexibility, subject to Monitoring Committee agreement. The degree of flexibility for
each measure is set at 10% of the total for that measure over the period 2000-2006,
and is subject to respect of the Community contribution in the concluded financing
agreement(s). This flexibility aims to facilitate management of the programme and to
avoid recourse to changes in the programmes for essentially bureaucratic reasons, as
was the case with Member States in the 1994-1999 period.

6.1.1. Measure 1 – Investments in agricultural holdings

All 10 SAPARD programmes include the measure on support for investments in
agricultural holdings. This measure is programmed to absorb 797 million euro
representing 22% of the total Community contribution. It is therefore, in global
financial terms (all 10 countries together), the second most important measure. For
several countries it is the largest measure: Lithuania (47%), Estonia (43%), Bulgaria
(31%), Hungary (28%) and the Slovak Republic (28%).

The importance of the budget earmarked for this measure in the programmes reflects
the need for modernisation of agriculture and its adaptation to Community
requirements. The measure aims at increasing the competitiveness of agricultural
holdings, through improvements in their fixed assets and equipment, improvements
in the quality of their products and redeployment of production according to market
needs and to contribute to diversification of farm activities. A further objective is to
help the adaptation of agricultural holdings to Community standards regarding
environment, hygiene and animal welfare.

The scope of the measure varies markedly from programme to programme: sectors
fodder
usually included are meat (cattle, pigs, poultry) and milk production,

17

In this section references to the Community contribution relate to the expected total Community co-
financing contribution for SAPARD of 3 703 million euro for the entire programming period
2000-2006.

23

production, cereals, fruit and vegetables (and in the case of Bulgaria and Romania
also vineyards).

Representative examples of possible eligible investments include construction or
renovation of farm buildings, purchase of agricultural machinery and equipment,
animal waste treatment facilities, construction or upgrading of fodder storage
facilities, construction or
facilities for on-farm milk or meat
processing.

renovation of

Aid rates (public contribution in relation to total eligible cost of the investment) in
the programmes vary from 30% to 50%. Sometimes they are differentiated according
to the sector/type of investment or according to the status of the beneficiary (such as
young farmer or farmers in Less Favoured Areas).

6.1.2. Measure 2 - Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery

products

This measure is included in all 10 SAPARD programmes. In global financial terms it
is the most important, amounting to 954 million euro representing 26% of the
expected total Community contribution. It is the largest measure for the Czech
Republic18 (25%), Latvia (26%), Poland (38%) and Slovenia (40%). For the
remaining countries it is in second place: Bulgaria (24%), Estonia (18%) - ex aequo
with measure for diversification of economic activities), Hungary (21%), Lithuania
(21%), Romania (17%) and the Slovak Republic (26%).

This data provides an idea of the importance placed by the applicant countries on the
processing and marketing measure as a way of helping to upgrade, adapt, rebuild or
create their agri-food industries. It will assist the countries in restructuring their
agricultural sectors,
improving product quality (complying with Community
standards) and competing more effectively at Community level.

The selection of sectors to be supported depends on the specific agricultural
characteristics and needs of each country. The total number of sectors to be
supported in each country varies between 3 (Estonia and Slovenia) and 11
(Romania). Three sectors were selected by all countries: dairy, meat and fish. Among
other sectors that will also be supported under this measure the most important are:

–

–

–

fruit and vegetables - present
in seven out of the ten applicant countries
(Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak
Republic),

wine (Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania),

cereals (Latvia, Lithuania and Romania).

Representative examples of possible eligible investments include: construction or
renovation of buildings; investments in food processing establishments to meet

18

For the Czech Republic the present analysis covers the measure "Improving the processing and
marketing of agriculture and fishery products" and the measure "Improving the structures for quality,
veterinary and plant-health controls, for the quality of foodstuffs and for consumer protection" that will
be applied in the processing industries. The actions proposed by the Czech authorities under this last
measure are similar to the processing and marketing measures for the other nine applicant countries.

24

Community requirements; new (and subject to specific rules possibly also second-
hand) machinery and equipment (including computer software); milk tanks and
coolers; storage facilities (including cold stores) and container washing facilities;
waste and by-product
for quality
improvement and improved control of the production process.

treatment equipment as well as equipment

One of the major objectives of SAPARD is to foster investments which will reinforce
the ability of the private sector to meet Community veterinary, hygiene, sanitary,
food quality, animal welfare and environmental requirements. Consequently, to be
even potentially eligible for aid, project applications involving construction of fixed
assets must, in all cases, be assessed by the national environmental and veterinary
authorities to check if, after their completion, the investment concerned will comply
with Community requirements in each of these areas.

6.1.3. Measure 3 - Improving the structures for quality, veterinary and plant-health

controls, for the quality of foodstuffs and for consumer protection

The Community contribution to this measure is 28 million euro. This sum represents
1% of the expected total Community contribution under SAPARD. It should be
noted that both SAPARD and PHARE can in full complementarity support
investments to improve structures for quality, veterinary and plant health controls,
for food quality and for consumer protection, including Border Inspection Posts. The
bulk of investments in the public sector, aiming at ensuring compliance with the
acquis, is expected to be supported by PHARE and not SAPARD, as the latter can
only support smaller actions (less than 2 million euro) at local level (see also
point 8.3).

Under SAPARD this measure was only approved for Romania19 where it represents
3% of the total SAPARD contribution. The Romanian authorities intend to use
SAPARD to support the establishment or modernisation of small public or private
laboratories in the sanitary-veterinary sector and in the plant health and food quality
control sectors, mainly at county level.

6.1.4. Measure 4 - Agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment

and maintain the countryside

Agri-environmental measures account for 83 million euro representing 2% of the
Community contribution. Unlike for Member States, implementation of this measure
is not obligatory for applicant countries under SAPARD. Nevertheless, with the
exception of Slovenia20, all applicant countries have included it in their programmes.
Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 states that support may be
level. In
granted to such measures provided that
addition, « such actions shall have the objective of developing practical experience
of agri-environment implementation at both the administrative and farm levels. ».
The elaboration of Good Farming Practices is another important requirement for the
applicant countries within this preparatory work.

they concern actions at pilot

19

20

As outlined in the previous footnote the SAPARD programme for the Czech Republic includes a
measure under this title but is not included in this analysis.
Slovenia did not include a measure on agri-environment in its SAPARD plan partly because its
relatively small overall budget for SAPARD and partly because preparation was ongoing for an agri-
environment scheme financed by national resources.

25

The nine countries concerned have agreed to start the agri-environmental measures
the
with appropriations from 2001 or 2002 only. The reason for this is that
environmental conditions for agriculture in the applicant countries are often very
different from those in the Community. Since the development of agri-environmental
programmes needs to take account of local conditions, it is not a matter of simply
transposing measures applied in the Community to the applicant countries.
Substantial preparatory work is needed in order to determine both the content of the
measures and arrangements for their application.

While most of the concerned applicant countries have already introduced detailed
orientations for the pilot actions within their programmes, these are only proposals
yet to be finalised in co-ordination with the Commission. The main proposed fields
of intervention are organic farming, biodiversity (including agricultural genetic
resources), special biotopes (including wetlands) and landscapes.

6.1.5. Measure 5 - Development and diversification of economic activities, providing for

multiple activities and alternative income

Each programme includes provision for a measure to develop and diversify economic
activities in the rural economy. Overall, this measure accounts for 416 million euro
representing 11% of the Community contribution for SAPARD. The extent to which
provision has been made for this measure across all the programmes varies from less
than 10% of total programme funds for Bulgaria (6%) and Lithuania (8%), to 24%
for Latvia.

The main objective of
this measure is to encourage the development and
diversification of economic activities in the countryside by providing alternative
sources of income to agriculture. Actions are needed to underpin employment
opportunities in rural areas, which have suffered from significant labour market
changes, as reflected by falling employment rates and a decline in employment in
agriculture. Although agricultural employment in most applicant countries remains
far above the level in many parts of the Community, a process of modernisation to
reflect technological and social change is already underway.

Many rural areas in the applicant countries have the potential for diversification,
especially towards rural tourism, the development and expansion of craft enterprises
and small- and medium-sized enterprises. All programmes have consequently made
provision for developing rural tourism as well as handicraft activities. Examples of
the latter include investments in facilities and equipment for weaving, woodwork and
ceramics. In Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania, provision has also been made for the
development of aquaculture and fish farming activities. Both the Czech Republic and
the Slovak Republic make provision for the restoration of buildings of a historical
and cultural value and for the conversion of farm buildings for business service
purposes. Provision for the development of local renewable energy sources is
included in the case of Latvia and the Czech Republic. The development of
agricultural services (involving the development of agricultural machinery rings) is
included in the Romanian programme. In Estonia, provision is also made for
investment support for the establishment or expansion of service activities for use by
agricultural producers, forest owners and the rural population.

26

6.1.6. Measure 6 - Setting up farm relief and farm management services

This measure was not considered as a priority by any of the applicant countries.
Consequently, it was not included in any of the approved programmes.

6.1.7. Measure 7 - Setting up producer groups

This measure is included in four SAPARD programmes (Bulgaria, Hungary,
Romania and the Slovak Republic). Overall the measure accounts for 47 million
euro, representing 1% of the expected total Community contribution for SAPARD.

In the programme for Bulgaria it represents 1% (4.7 million euro), for Romania 2%
(23.6 million euro), for the Slovak Republic 5% (8 million euro) and for Hungary
7 % (26 million euro). The principal objective of the measure is to support
agricultural producers, who jointly market their products to pre-defined standards.

A minimum volume of the annual production of the groups to be supported is fixed
in the case of the Slovak Republic, Romania and Bulgaria and the minimum annual
turnover is fixed for Romania (20 000 euro), Bulgaria (150 000 euro) and the Slovak
Republic (from just under 0.5 million euro to 12 million euro depending on the
product).

6.1.8. Measure 8 - Renovation and development of villages and the protection and

conservation of the rural heritage

As part of their strategy for rural development, four countries (Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Estonia and Hungary) have included this measure in their SAPARD
programmes. Overall, this measure accounts for 72 million euro, representing 2% of
the expected Community contribution. This varies from 11% of total programme
funds in the case of the Czech Republic to 4% in the case of Hungary.

The main objective of this measure is to assist the development of rural communities
to help generate better living standards.

Another aspect is the preservation and renovation of local heritage (cultural and
architectural features and monuments).

In order to support the development of tourism, villages needs to be able to offer
basic services. Furthermore, they need to respond to specific interests based on
cultural or natural assets, historical or special sites or monuments, and heritage. The
appearance of villages and their surroundings can be a driving force in this strategy.

Examples of activities that may be supported include: renovation of streets and
public areas; improvement of village appearance; renovation/protection of historical
and architectural monuments; establishment of new municipal facilities to promote
business start-ups (including public market places); establishment of information
points; renovation/construction of local cultural/leisure centres and all related works
(such as parks and public gardens).

6.1.9. Measure 9 – Land improvement and reparcelling

Three countries (the Czech Republic, Latvia and the Slovak Republic) have opted for
this measure. While this measure accounts for 46 million euro representing 1% of the

27

total Community contribution,
the “land reparcelling” measure plays a very
significant role in the Czech SAPARD Programme, where it concerns 20% of the
total Community contribution and to a lesser extent in the Slovak programme (10%
of the total Community contribution).

In the countries concerned, there is a need for land consolidation and rationalisation
of parcels. The main challenges are the fragmentation of plots, the high number of
co-owner shares, the incomplete land register and the physical inaccessibility of
some plots. This situation inhibits further development of efficient farming, the land
market and investment in land, and may inhibit completion of the restitution process.
This measure will contribute to establishing a better settlement of land and so
increase the efficiency of farms by helping to create the conditions for rational land
management.

Eligible investments will
preparation and implementation of land use projects (such as marking out
division plan, surveys and earthworks) and the building of access roads.

the preparation of necessary documentation;
the

include:

6.1.10. Measure 10 - Establishment and updating of land registers

Activities covered by this measure are commonly recognised in the applicant
countries as being significant for their future development. However, the applicant
countries have used other available resources (mainly PHARE assistance or PHARE
and World Bank assistance combined) or, in some cases national resources to support
such activities. As a result, this measure has not been included in any of the
programmes.

6.1.11. Measure 11 - Improvement of vocational training

the Estonian and Slovenian,

All programmes, except
include a measure for
vocational
training. The Community co-financing allocated for this measure is
the total Community contribution. The
117 million euro representing 3% of
beneficiaries are farmers and other persons involved in farming and forestry
activities as well as those converting from these activities. Thus, farmers who are
changing from agricultural activities to, for example, rural tourism would be eligible
for support. However, other persons, such as those working in the processing and
marketing industries, are not eligible under this measure.

The main objectives are to prepare farmers for reorientation of production and
acquisition of the skills needed to enable them to manage an economically viable
farm. Other objectives include the application of production practices compatible
with the maintenance and enhancement of
the
environment, hygiene standards and animal welfare.

the landscape, protection of

A few programmes also include objectives regarding training for forest holders and
other persons involved in forestry activities to facilitate the application of forest
management practices and to improve the economic, ecological or social functions of
forests.

6.1.12. Measure 12 - Development and improvement of rural infrastructure

Poor infrastructure and its associated implications for economic development have
been key concerns for all applicant countries. Overall, 759 million euro representing

28

21% of the Community contribution will be directed towards the rural infrastructure
measure. In Poland and Romania, 28% of their respective programmes will be
dedicated to a range of rural infrastructure developments. In both programmes,
improvements in infrastructure are seen as pre-requisites for rural development. In
Poland, insufficient technical infrastructure in rural areas constitutes one of the main
barriers to development. For example, at
the end of 1998, only 50% of rural
households had a telephone (a significant barrier to business development); and only
5.8% of rural households were connected to sewage systems. In addition, only a third
of rural households used official dumping sites. It has been estimated that a similar
proportion of Poland’s electricity supply network in rural areas needs urgent
modernisation.

In Romania, the rural population frequently has no access to piped water. In addition
to access problems, the wells do not provide water of adequate quality.

Reflecting these problems, four main types of infrastructure are covered to varying
degrees by the SAPARD Programmes. These are investments in: (i) water and waste
management (ii) roads (iii) electricity supply and (iv) rural telecommunications. All
the programmes (with the exception of the Slovak Republic and Slovenia) make
provision for investments in water supply and waste management, and roads. The
programmes for the Baltic States include provision for access roads both to farms
and in some cases to rural enterprises. Reinforcement of the electricity supply
network is included in the programmes for the Czech Republic (where provision is
also made for the development of renewable energy sources), Estonia, Hungary,
Lithuania and Poland. The last
four programmes also include provision for
improving rural telecommunications.

6.1.13. Measure 13 - Agricultural water resources management

This measure is included only in Bulgaria and Romania's SAPARD programmes.
According to the financial tables, an amount of 50 million euro will be directed to
this measure, representing about 1% of the expected total Community contribution.
This represents 5% (20 million euro) and 3% (30 million euro) of the Community
contribution for Bulgaria and Romania respectively.

The principal objectives of the measure are to ensure sustainable management of
water resources and to protect
in rural areas. This would be
the environment
achieved in part by schemes for irrigation, drainage and flood protection.

The measure includes:

–

–

–

modernisation of existing irrigation systems,

construction and renewal of dykes for the protection of agricultural
against floods,

land

construction of dams and associated irrigation networks.

29

6.1.14. Measure 14 - Forestry, including afforestation of agricultural areas, investment in
forest holdings owned by private forest owners and processing and marketing of
forestry products

This measure is included in the SAPARD programmes approved for six countries:
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic. In
global terms it is foreseen that 167 million euro, representing 5% of the Community
contribution, will be used to support forest activities under this measure. Its
importance for each individual applicant country varies from 1% (Estonia) to 8%
(Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic) and 10% (Romania).

The main activities to be supported under this measure are: afforestation of
agricultural areas, improvement of existing forest areas, investments to improve and
rationalise the harvesting, processing, and marketing of forestry products and support
to forest infrastructure.

Two further points should be noted:

(a)

(b)

applicant countries that have not included this measure as a SAPARD priority
at this stage are supporting forestry activities under national measures (the
Czech Republic and Slovenia) or through PHARE-Institution Building support
(e.g. Hungary - Development of the forestry information system);

this measure may support activities related to
even programmes without
forestry under other measures namely: training for forest holders (measure 11),
establishment or improvement of forest tree nurseries (measure 1), forest roads
or paths (measure 12) and processing and marketing of forest products, which
timber as such and includes products like
may be wood-based but not
woodcraft, fuel wood and forest berries (measure 5).

6.1.15 Measure 15 - Technical assistance for the measures covered by this Regulation,
including studies to assist with the preparation and monitoring of the programme,
information and publicity campaigns

Article 2(15) of the SAPARD Regulation provides for technical assistance for the
measures contained in each programme. Overall, technical assistance accounts for
approximately 3% of the Community contribution. The figure varies from 1% of the
programme in the case of the Czech Republic and Poland, to 5% for Romania.

All SAPARD programmes include at least four categories of expenditure, as follows:

1.

Information and publicity. All programmes make provision for the use of
technical assistance in support of information and publicity needs. Towards the
end of 2000, the Commission requested that each country set out the specific
actions they had undertaken or intended to pursue in order to promote
awareness of the programme.

2. Monitoring of programme implementation and support for the activities of the
Monitoring Committee. All programmes are required to be subject
to a
monitoring procedure and have included provisions for the use of technical
assistance to support costs associated with Monitoring Committee preparation
and meetings.

30

3.

4.

Programme evaluations and studies. All programmes will be subject to a mid-
involve the use of experts to undertake such
term evaluation. This will
exercises, including the provision of advice on monitoring and management
information systems.

Training and the use of experts. Provision has been included in a number of
programmes for experts to provide advice, for example in the preparation of
supporting documents for project selection and the training of trainers.

During the year 2000, all countries provided the Commission with an estimate of
their need for technical assistance to the end of 2001. In May 2001, the Commission
indicated to the applicant countries which of these needs it considered eligible for
Community co-financing.

6.2.

Cross-sectoral issues

6.2.1.

Environment

The environmental aspect of SAPARD programmes is not
limited to the agri-
environment measure (measure 4). As one of the main SAPARD goals is to
contribute to the implementation of the acquis the attainment of environmental
objectives was included in various other measures in the different programmes. In
this way, actions with important environmental aspects, but
falling outside
measure 4, have been foreseen, especially in connection with water protection (the
Nitrate Directive and the Waste Water Directive). They include manure handling
under measure 1, waste treatment under measure 2 and water treatment under
measure 12.

Attention has been paid to the use of environmental impact assessment in the project
selection procedure, in particular to avoid deterioration of potential Natura 2000
sites. Environmental authorities will be
involved in verifying respect of
environmental constraints in the project selection procedure. These authorities and
relevant NGOs are also involved in the monitoring and evaluation of environmental
aspects of the programmes.

The obligation for beneficiaries to respect environmental standards equivalent to
these set out in Community legislation (notably the Nitrates, Environmental Impact
Assessment and Natura 2000) and animal welfare, is an important element of the
programmes. In several applicant countries these obligations were backed by
commitments in the form of deadlines for their transposition into national law.

6.2.2. Quality and health standards

Investments under measure 2 and, where applicable also under measure 1, require
compliance with standards equivalent to these of Community provisions on food
safety, hygiene and animal welfare. All programmes require that:

–

–

SAPARD support for investments shall only be granted if, when completed,
the investment complies with Community standards,

the competent veterinary authorities will carry out a prior assessment of the
project to certify that the investment will meet Community standards when
completed.

31

6.2.3.

Ex ante evaluations

Article 5 of the SAPARD Regulation provides that all programmes shall be subject
to prior and mid-term appraisal, on-going monitoring and ex post evaluation. The
Commission sent guidelines to all applicant countries on the prior appraisal of their
programme proposals. All countries have made use of these guidelines, in some
cases to very good effect.

The evaluation work has had a positive impact on the overall quality of the rural
development plans. The involvement of evaluators in drafting the programme
proposals and the integration of evaluation conclusions and recommendations in the
programmes resulted in improvements to programme coherence and consistency. In
part, the evaluation exercises have made up for a certain lack of expertise or
experience on the part of the national authorities in preparing the SAPARD plans.

One of the major advantages of such ex ante evaluation exercises is the outside
perspective that the evaluators provide. In addition, the involvement of external
evaluators has helped the various national authorities concerned to gain new
perspectives on the theoretical bases of programming.

7.

ACCREDITATION OF THE SAPARD AGENCIES AND DECISION
CONFERRING MANAGEMENT OF AID

7.1.

Legal background

Section 3 of this report sets out the legislative framework for the implementation of
SAPARD. The specific legal basis for decentralising management of SAPARD aid is
found in Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999, the Co-ordination
Regulation. This Regulation provides that the Commission may decide, on the basis
of a case-by-case analysis of national and sectoral programme/project management
capacity, financial control procedures and structures regarding public finance to
waive the ex ante approval requirement. Such approval is normally required in the
context of external aid for project selection, tendering and contracting.

7.2.

Minimum criteria and conditions for decentralisation set out in Regulation (EC)
No 1266/1999

Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 provides that any such waiver and
conferral of management as referred to in point 7.1 shall be subject to:

–

–

minimum criteria for assessing the ability of
applicant countries to manage aid, and

implementing agencies in

minimum conditions applicable to such agencies.

The minimum criteria and conditions are set out in the Annex to that Regulation, as
follows:

Minimum criteria for assessing the ability of

1.
applicant countries to manage aid

implementing agencies in

32

The following criteria shall be applied by the Commission in assessing which
implementing agencies in partner countries are able to manage aid on a
decentralised basis:

(i)

(ii)

there should be a well-defined system for managing the funds with full internal
rules of procedure, clear institutional and personal responsibilities;

the principle of separation of powers must be respected so that there is no risk
of conflict of interest in procurement and payment;

(iii) adequate personnel must be available and assigned to the task. They must have
suitable auditing skills and experience, language skills and be fully trained in
implementing Community programmes.

Minimum conditions for decentralising management to implementing agencies

2.
in applicant countries

Decentralisation to applicant countries with ex post control by the Commission may
be considered for an implementing agency where the following conditions are met:

(i)

demonstration of effective internal controls including an independent audit
function and an effective accounting and financial reporting system which
meets internationally accepted audit standards;

(ii)

a recent
financial and operational audit showing effective and timely
management of Community assistance or national measures of similar nature;

(iii) a reliable national financial control system over the implementing agency;

(iv) procurement rules which are endorsed by the Commission as meeting
requirements of Title IX of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general
budget of the European Communities;

(v)

commitment by the National Authorising Officer to bear the full financial
responsibility and liability for the funds.

The Regulation also states that the conferral of management shall be subject to
specific provisions concerning inter alia invitations to tender, scrutiny and evaluation
of tenders, the award of contracts and the implementation of public procurement
directives which shall be laid down in financing agreements with each beneficiary
country.

7.3.

Relationship between the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 and the
SAPARD Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000
setting out the financial rules for SAPARD

The conditions for decentralisation set out in the Co-ordination Regulation are not
incompatible with the EAGGF and Structural Funds (including Guidance) principles
to which the SAPARD Regulation refers. However, the Commission was required
under the SAPARD Regulation to adopt financial rules. In addition, Regulation (EC)
No 2222/2000 served the following purposes:

33

(i)

(ii)

it demonstrated the Commission's adherence to the obligation in the SAPARD
Regulation that EAGGF and Structural Fund principles be respected and

it provided applicant countries with further details as to how the conditions of
Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 might be met.

Existing Community legislation covering EAGGF and Structural Funds operations
provided a reliable basis for the financial rules that govern SAPARD.

In respect of (i), Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 includes the requirement
to
nominate a paying agency, which is also required for Structural Funds and EAGGF
Guarantee operations. The Regulation draws significantly on the accreditation
system used specifically for the payment of Guarantee-funded measures. The system
for advances and payment reimbursement is based primarily on the Structural Funds
system. The Regulation includes a requirement for the Commission to clear the
accounts of the SAPARD agency on an annual basis. This process requires an
independent certificate and report to be furnished to the Commission by the applicant
country. The external aid rules of the Financial Regulation also require a clearance
procedure before payments are finally booked to the budget appropriations. The
to be
Structural Funds system requires an independent certificate and report
furnished at the end of the programming period rather than on an annual basis.

In respect of (ii), Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 provides details on how an agency
responsible for implementation and payment of the measures should be accredited by
the Competent Authority. The annex to the Regulation sets out detailed functions and
the criteria to be put in place for the agency to be accredited. These functions and
criteria represent an elaboration of the annex to Regulation (EC) 1266/1999 and the
conditions for conferral on any implementing agency, which includes the National
Fund. The Regulation also sets out the role of the National Fund and the conditions
necessary for conferral of management.

7.4.

Relationship between the regulatory conditions for conferring management and
the Multi-annual Financing Agreement

The rules of Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000, which reflected both the rules of
Regulations (EC) No 1268/1999 and (EC) No 1266/1999 were included in the
Multi-annual Agreement. The negotiations on the agreements gave the Commission
another opportunity to elaborate some of the criteria and conditions of the Regulation
for clarification and explanatory purposes, which also assisted the applicant countries
in achieving a better understanding of the conditions necessary for decentralisation.

7.5.

Commission Decision conferring management of aid

The following steps are taken in respect of the Commission Decision conferring
management of aid:

1.

2.

the applicant country concludes the national accreditation work of
the
SAPARD agency. This must be examined by the Competent Authority, which
must then demonstrate its satisfaction with the outcome in the form of an Act
of Accreditation;

the National Fund within the Ministry of Finance must demonstrate its ability
to manage the receipt and transfer of Community and national funds;

34

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the authorities must notify the Commission of this accreditation work and a
complete package of information must be sent to the Commission;

the Commission must examine, in Brussels and on the spot, the basis for the
including obtaining supplementary information and
national accreditation,
clarification;

when satisfied that the country has demonstrated its ability to implement the
programme, the Commission may take a Decision conferring management of
the measures in the programme (all or part of the measures) to the SAPARD
agency and the National Fund;

a "provisional" decision on accreditation is granted when the auditors have
reasonable assurance that the system put in place by the applicant country will
work. However, it presupposes that the system will be "audited" once the first
transactions have been processed;

the Commission informs a country of the adoption of the Decision and of any
recommendations required to be carried out.

At a later stage the Commission may decide to grant conferral of management on a
basis other than provisional.

7.6.

Progress made towards decentralisation

7.6.1.

Fact-finding visits in 1999

In November and December 1999, the Commission carried out the first fact-finding
visits to each applicant country to establish the extent to which progress had been
made towards setting up the systems for implementing SAPARD.

The visits occurred when the Communication to the Commission of 26 January 2000
was in the final drafting stages, and therefore prior to the adoption of the detailed
in Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000. However, applicant
financial rules set out
countries were already aware of the conditions for decentralisation set out
in
Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 (published on 26 June 1999).

At the time of these first visits, applicant countries were in the final stages of drafting
their rural development plans, which had to be submitted to the Commission by
29 December 1999. The SAPARD Regulation (also published on 26 June 1999)
provides that
the financial support shall comply with EAGGF principles. The
Regulation also requires applicant countries to include in their plans "the names of
the competent authorities and bodies responsible for carrying out the programme,
including the paying agency". The countries were already familiar with these
principles and the paying agency system from screening seminars organised by the
Commission as part of its general institution building programme for applicant
countries. The SAPARD Regulation also requires applicant countries to include in
their plans provisions ensuring correct implementation of the programme, including
the arrangements for controls and penalties.

The conclusion following the visits was that
undertake a substantial amount of work in order to adapt

the applicant countries needed to
their procedures for

35

SAPARD. The Commission issued letters to each country indicating the areas
requiring improvement following these first visits.

7.6.2.

Fact-finding visits in 2000

During the year 2000 the Commission carried out 36 fact-finding visits to assess
progress and communicated its findings to applicant countries by letter. The visits
highlighted many issues, some specific to individual countries, others common to all.
Notable common points included:

–

–

–

–

–

–

the need to establish effective internal audit functions at both the SAPARD
agency and the National Fund,

the need to ensure that eligibility and ranking criteria are specific, measurable
and manageable,

the need for a realistic accreditation strategy,

the requirement for a suitable Information and Communication Strategy,

the need to observe the principles of sound financial management,

various accounting matters.

The visits also revealed that the rate of progress varied. In many cases, applicant
countries required considerable and repeated encouragement to address the tasks
before them. That said, the discussions were nevertheless open, constructive and
fruitful.

7.6.3. National accreditation completed in 2000

Bulgaria submitted its accreditation package to the Commission on 18 December
2000 thereby indicating that it believed it was ready for the Commission Decision
conferring management of aid. The Commission services began an examination of
the national accreditation work which would lead to the drawing up of the report
required to obtain a Decision to confer management (see section 9).

7.6.4.

The type of system required

There is a risk that the financial management system imposed might be considered
too complex for the applicant countries,
thereby resulting in delays in making
SAPARD operational. The conditions of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 elaborated
in Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 reflect financial management principles whose
main objective is to ensure accountability and appropriate use of Community monies.

The reasons for the differing rates of progress between the countries are not always
apparent. Some that relied heavily on the expertise of external consultants (such as
through twinning arrangements and SIGMA) appear to have progressed more
rapidly, but there may have been other factors influencing their progress. Two
specific factors that the Commission has identified as being crucial to making
progress are staff continuity in the institutions and the consistent involvement of
senior management in the process. For example, difficulties arose where officials had
been trained and then left their posts. Another important example concerns the need

36

for effective communication and co-operation between, and within, the two bodies
(National Fund and SAPARD agency). Where this is present, there is progress;
where it is absent, there are difficulties.

is clear that SAPARD involves a significant

innovation for many of these
It
countries, whose previous experience was of highly centralised systems, including
those employed for the administration of Community aid where ex ante approval by
the Commission is required for the selection, tendering and contracting of every
project. This departure caused some difficulties particularly in the early stages when
the concept of taking responsibility for the direct management of Community aid
was not fully understood. It also had significant implications for countries' national
legislative frameworks. However, as 2000 progressed, it was clear that, in general,
the applicant countries had made significant progress in setting up their systems for
decentralised management.

The only possible alternative to the proposed system would be direct management
from the Commission in Brussels or via delegations in the applicant countries. For
management reasons this would require aid to be granted mainly, if not wholly, to
large projects, thereby reducing the number and nature of the beneficiaries. Smaller
beneficiaries, i.e. SMEs and most farms, except the very largest, would be eliminated
and a re-negotiation of the SAPARD programmes approved by the Commission
would be necessary.

to applicant countries, SAPARD gives future
By decentralising management
members the opportunity to gain valuable experience in applying the mechanisms for
management of Community Funds, as well as obtaining the benefits of implementing
a rural development programme. On a broader front, the investment in new systems
will build skills that will be readily transferable to the management of other
Community Funds.

8.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND CO-ORDINATION WITH OTHER
INSTRUMENTS

Implementation of SAPARD programmes is subject to the provisions of the Multi-
annual Financing Agreement
in respect of both monitoring and evaluation.
According to these provisions a monitoring committee shall be established for each
SAPARD programme. In support of these commitments and activities, guidance for
establishing rules of procedure for the SAPARD Monitoring Committees was given
by the Commission to all applicant countries during 2000.

8.1.

Co-ordination with other instruments

Consistent with the Co-ordination Regulation and in order to avoid any overlapping
between operations receiving support from SAPARD and PHARE or from ISPA,
appropriate provisions are included in the programming documents and agreements.
The Multi-annual Financing Agreement provides that the applicant country shall
ensure that any risk of funds being disbursed more than once is avoided, notably by
means of stamping invoices with "SAPARD" before being paid for by the SAPARD
agency. This procedure becomes particularly important when a SAPARD project,
due to its nature, could be eligible for assistance under other instruments.

37

8.2.

The Commission's Coordination Committee

The Co-ordination Committee includes representatives from relevant Commission
departments. During 2000 the Committee monitored progress in establishing the
legal framework for the two new pre-accession instruments, ISPA and SAPARD.
Co-ordination of programming and monitoring is continuing in 2001, as well as the
move towards Extended Decentralised Implementation (EDIS)
ISPA and
PHARE.

for

8.3.

Clarifying the interface between PHARE and SAPARD

To draw a line between actions, which could receive support from either SAPARD
or PHARE, the Commission clarified the interface between the two instruments. This
was needed particularly for investments in the veterinary area. The demarcation is
that PHARE may support investments if they concern public works carried out by
national authorities or other public authorities to whom the competence has been
sub-delegated by the national authorities. Investments could be eligible under
SAPARD if they relate to private activities (for example, in-house laboratories for
processing plants, or upgrading of farm equipment). SAPARD programmes may also
include investments to improve small, local public structures for quality, veterinary
and plant health controls, for food quality and for consumer protection (see also point
6.1.3). In addition, PHARE will continue to provide institution building support,
notably for SAPARD agencies.

8.4.

The interface between SAPARD and ISPA

The Co-ordination Regulation provides that measures to support agriculture and rural
development shall be financed according to Article 2 of the SAPARD Regulation
and that investment projects (in principle with total cost no less than 5 million euro)
in the field of environment and transport will be governed by Article 2 of the ISPA
Regulation.

9.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

The signing of the Multi-annual Financing Agreement (MFA) and the Annual
Financing Agreement (AFA) with all 10 applicant countries eligible under SAPARD
had been completed by the end of March 2001. The Agreements may now be subject
to a ratification procedure in the SAPARD countries, depending on the various
constitutional rules.

Following Bulgaria's submission in 2000, Estonia submitted its Act of Accreditation
on 5 February 2001. A Commission decision conferring management of aid to
Bulgaria was taken on 15 May 2001 for three measures. A Decision for a similar
nature for Estonia was taken on 15 June 2001 for four measures.

It is difficult to make a meaningful forecast as to when the process will be completed
for all countries, as this will depend largely on the countries' own efforts and
capacities to meet the conditions. The Commission continues to provide institution
building support to SAPARD agencies through PHARE.

According to provisions in the Multi-annual Financing Agreement commitment
appropriations for the year 2000 can be paid provided the relevant claim is submitted

38

to the Commission by the end of 2002. Thereafter, any remaining, unused
commitments relating to 2000 are to be automatically decommitted. However, the
Commission is considering the possibility of extending this deadline for the 2000
appropriations on an exceptional basis, in view of the fact that no Commission
Decision conferring management of aid could be taken by the end of 2000.

In order to reinforce the importance of both monitoring and evaluation, a series of
seminars was held in the spring of 2001, with the participation of the applicant
issues concerning the arrangements,
countries. One seminar examined in detail
requirements and procedures in respect of monitoring SAPARD programmes.
Presentations were made concerning the responsibilities and functions of the
Managing Authority and the Monitoring Committee, and the use of monitoring
indicators.

Two seminars on evaluation were organised in May 2001. These aimed to introduce
the applicant countries to the approach promoted by the Commission and followed
by the Member States for the evaluation of Community-financed rural development
programmes.

39

ANNEX 1

REFERENCE LIST

All the documents in this reference list can be found on the Internet page:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/enlarge/index_en.htm

Legislation

Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support on co-
ordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-
accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central
and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community
support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant
countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.

Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 on the indicative allocation of the annual Community
financial contribution to pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development
(notified under document number C(1999) 2431) [1999/595/EC].

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 of 22 December 1999 laying down rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-
accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central
and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.

Commission Regulation (EC) No°2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-
accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central
and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.

Commission Regulation (EC) No° 2356/2000 of 24 October 2000 amending Regulation (EC)
No 2759/1999 of 22 December 1999 laying down rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for
agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in
the pre-accession period.

Information brochures

CEC Reports: "Agricultural Situation and Prospects in the Central and Eastern European
Countries" (1998)

SCAD plus: Pre-accession aid - Agricultural instrument (Sapard)

Info-paper: "EU enlargement" (03/2000)

Fact-sheet: "EU and enlargement - Pre-accession instruments: focus on agriculture" (10/2000)

40

"Prospects for agricultural markets in the Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern
Europe" (11/2000)

Newsletters

"Preparing for enlargement: allocating SAPARD funds" in: Newsletter N° 14 - August 1999

"Pre-accession assistance: implementing SAPARD" in: Newsletter N° 19 - January 2000

"Financial management of pre-accession aid (SAPARD)" in: Newsletter N° 20 - February
2000

"The CAP and the accession negotiations a progress report" in: Newsletter N° 22 – May 2000

"Farm trade with the CEECs: preparing for accession" in: Newsletter N° 23 - June 2000

"Pre-accession aid: 6 programmes approved" in: Newsletter N° 26 - September 2000

"SAPARD in the starting block" in: Newsletter N° 28 - November 2000

"Go-ahead for SAPARD financing agreements" in: Newsletter N° 29 - December 2000

"Sapard Bulgaria: Multi-annual Financing Agreement" in: Newsletter N° 30 – January 2001

"Sapard: Agreements signed with nine candidate countries" in: Newsletter N° 32 - March
2001

"Sapard: all agreements have now been signed" in: Newsletter N° 33 - April 2001

41

ANNEX 2
SAPARD
Adoption procedure of the Financing Agreements

Financing Agreement

Bulgaria

Czech
Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Adoption of the Financial Implementing Reg. 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000 7 June 2000

on

the

draft

consultation

Interservice
Financing Agreement
Circulation of draft agreement to applicant
countries
Start of negotiations on Financing Agreement
with applicant countries at work-shop
Circulation, re-drafted agreement to applicant
countries taking account of work-shop
Receipt
countries

from applicant

comments

of

12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000 12 July 2000

20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000 20 July 2000

27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000 27 July 2000

3 August
2000
28 August
2000

3 August
2000
5 September
2000

3 August
2000
2 September
2000

3 August
2000
22 August
2000

3 August
2000
18 August
2000

3 August
2000
21 August
2000

3 August
2000
21 August
2000

3 August
2000
21 August
2000

3 August
2000
22 August
2000

3 August
2000
22 August
2000

Launch of 2nd inter-service consultation

8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000 8 Sept. 2000

Circulation
applicant countries

of

re-drafted agreement

to

Receipt of comments from applicant countries

Launch of 3rd inter-service consultation

to

of

re-drafted agreement

Circulation
applicant countries (provisional)
Circulation to applicant countries
Text put to Commission
Decision authorising Commission signature
of Financing Agreement

Agreement of applicant country

of Multi-annual

Signature
Agreement
Commitment under 2000 Annual Financing
Agreement

Financing

Signature of Annual Financing Agreement

29 September
2000
9 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
1 December
2000
18 December
2000
30 January
2001
12 February
2001

29 September
2000
18 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
1 December
2000
5 February
2001
31 January
2001
5 February
2001

29 September
2000
20 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
14 December
2000
25 January
2001
30 January
2001
1 March
2001

29 September
2000
20 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
26 December
2001
1 March
2001
13 February
2001
1 March
2001

29 September
2000
9 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
7 December
2000
25 January
2001
30 January
2001
30 March
2001

29 September
2000
13 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
11 December
2000
5 March
2001
13 February
2001
5 March
2001

29 September
2000
15 November
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
29 January
2001
25 January
2001
31 January
2001
29 March
2001

29 September
2000
Oral “OK”
26 Oct. 2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
12 December
2000
2 February
2001
13 February
2001
27 February
2001

29 September
2000
17 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
30 November
2000
26 March
2001
13 February
2001
26 March
2001

29 September
2000
18 October
2000
28 October
2000
10 November
2000
24 November
2000
29 November
2000
8 December
2000
5 March
2001
13 February
2001
5 March
2001

42

ANNEX 3

SAPARD Programme

State of the adoption procedure of the Rural Development Plans – 10.04.2001

PLAN

Bulgaria

Czech Rep.

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Submission of plan
Letter of acknowledgement and request
for further information
Initial consultations with Commission
services (2000)

28.12.1999
27 January
2000

17.2.2000
21 March
2000

29.12.1999
31 January
2000

29.12.1999
27 January
2000

20.12.1999
31 January
2000

21.12.1999
27 January
2000

28.12.1999
21 January
2000

27.12.1999
21 January
2000

21.12.1999
27 January
2000

6.1.2000
27 January
2000

Consultation note

17 January

21 February

17 January

17 January

17 January

17 January

17 January

17 January

17 January

17 January

Consultative meetings

2 February

–

31 January

2 February

31 January

14 February

2 February

14 February

31 January

5 April

7 April

12 May

25 April

applicant

24 March

23 March

1 February

24 February

21 February 4 February

11 February 4 February

10 February 23 February

interservice consultations with

13 April*
11 April**
7 - 8 June

28 April
31 May***
5 May*
4 May**
29 June

Consultations with applicant
country
request for additional information (2000)*
Submission of revised plans/
Start of adoption procedure (2000)
Formal
Commission services on the plan (2000)
consultations with
Formal
country (2000)
Submission of second revised Plan (2000)
Agreement with applicant country on the
plan (final version submitted) (2000)
Inter-service consultation with Commis-
sion services on the draft decision (2000)
Deadline for
inter-service consultations
(2000)
Submission to STAR Committee (2000) 13 September 13 September 24 October 13 September 13 September 24 October 13 September 22 November 24 October 13 September
Opinion of STAR Committee (2000)
Positive
18 October
Date of adoption of
2738 final
programme [C(2000)….]

12 September 8 September 25 October 12 September 11 September 23 October 12 September 21 November 23 October 14 September

1 September 1 September 18 October 1 September 1 September 18 October 1 September 18 November 18 October 1 September

17 May
6 June***
25 May*
22 May**
11-12 July

Positive
27 November
3329 final

Positive
17 November
3327 final

Positive
17 November
3321 final

Positive
12 December
3742 final

8 February
15 February
27 April

30 March*
29 March**
16 May

Positive
18 October
3040 final

Positive
27 October
3138 final

Positive
26 October
3105 final

Positive
25 October
3097 final

Positive
20 October
3058 final

10 April
7 April**
11-12 May

13 April*
11 April**
25 May

19 May*
17 May**
13-14 July

5 May*
4 May**
8 – 9 June

11 May*
10 May**
3 – 5 July

3 May*
2 May**
16 June

11 October 20 September

16 August 18 September

the SAPARD

4 September

25 October

16 August

14 August

16 August

14 August

16 August

16 August

5 October

5 October

5 October

20 April

26 June

22 June

19 June

6 April

3 July

5 July

31 January
2 February
7 February

*
**
***

Start of consultations and additional consultations.
Intra-service consultations within DG Agriculture.
Submission of the prior appraisal.

43

ANNEX 4

SAPARD Programmes (Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999) -
Maximum EU Contribution (2000-2006) (euro at 2000 prices)

BULGARIA

CZECH REPUBLIC

ESTONIA

HUNGARY

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

Measures

1 - Investment in agricultural holdings

euro

%

113 000 000

2 - Processing & marketing of agriculture and fishery products

86 137 523

3 - Structures for quality, veterinary controls, foodstuffs and cons.

4 - Environmentally friendly agricultural practices

5 - Diversification of activities, providing alternative income

7- Setting up producer groups

8 - Renovation of villages, protection of rural heritage

9 - Land improvement and reparcelling

11 - Vocational training

12 - Rural infrastructures

13 - Water resources management

9 000 000

23 000 000

3 500 000

28 500 000

16 000 000

20 690 000

20 000 000

14 - Forestry, afforestation, investment , processing/marketing

30 000 000

14 000 000

15 - Technical Assistance

Total of measures

euro

*

%

euro

%

euro

%

euro

*

%

euro

*

%

31

24

24 852 531

39 241 696 (1)

16

25

36 307 508

15 612 332

43

18

75 607 000

54 542 000

28

21

35 294 216

39 650 825

23

26

97 408 318

43 680 924

2

6

1

8

4

6

5

8

4

4 583 835

3

1 210 012

1

11 330 000

4

6 970 116 (2)

5

2 124 171

24 780 004

16

15 249 329

18

41 077 000

15

35 945 379

24

17 056 407

16 410 264

31 007 091

3 310 547

8 205 131

11

20

2

5

19 530 000

3 025 030

4

24 070 000

4 748 000

7

9

2

2 831 608

5 882 748

2

4

3 726 429

10 529 171

12

31 829 000

12

18 299 986

12

32 275 215

1 089 011

1 609 493

1

1 694 332

1

2

4 574 994

2 885 381

1

3 049 996

3

2

7 687 763

4 248 335

47

21

1

8

2

16

4

2

363 827 523

100 154 000 592

100

84 716 725

100 265 618 381

100 152 499 868

100 208 207 562

100

Assistance as referred to in Art. 7(4) of Reg. (EC) No 1268/1999

7 355 499

3 113 428

1 712 716

5 370 008

3 083 090

4 209 328

TOTAL

371 183 022

157 114 020

86 429 441

270 988 389

155 582 958

212 416 890

10%

4%

2%

7%

4%

6%

(1)

(2)

Corresponds to the following two measures of the Czech programme: " Processing & Marketing" (25 466 765 euro)+ "Improving structures for quality control, for the
quality of foodstuffs and for consumer protection" (13 774 931 euro) that will be applied in processing units.
Corresponds to the following three measures of the Latvian programme: "Organic farming" (2 788 047 euro) + "Preservation of Biodiversity and rural landscape"
(2 439 541 euro) + " Reduction of agricultural run off" (1 742 528 euro).

44

Measures

POLAND

ROMANIA

SLOVAKIA

SLOVENIA

ALL ACs

euro

*

%

euro

%

euro

*

%

euro

%

euro

%

1 - Investment in agricultural holdings

208 084 148

2 - Processing & marketing of agriculture and fishery products

448 320 000

3 - Structures for quality, veterinary controls, foodstuffs and cons.

4 - Environmentally friendly agricultural practices

16 750 000

5 - Diversification of activities, providing alternative income

136 040 000

7- Setting up producer groups

8 - Renovation of villages, protection of rural heritage

9 - Land improvement and reparcelling

11 - Vocational training

12 - Rural infrastructures

13 - Water resources management

14 - Forestry, afforestation, investment, processing/marketing

15 – Technical Assistance

Total of measures

25 610 000

327 780 000

6 170 000

8 659 686

18

38

1

12

2

28

1

1

155 617 000

175 544 000

28 049 000

26 571 000

15

17

3

3

35 402 284

33 623 611

4 500 000

102 600 000

10

14 413 327

17 712 000

2

5 850 000

55 535 000

299 391 000

29 525 000

108 340 000

52 561 078

12 617 500

2 500 000

5 080 275

9 670 923

4 000 000

5

28

3

10

5

28

26

4

11

5

10

2

4

8

3

15 498 700

17 712 800

35

40

797 071 705

954 065 711

28 049 000

83 039 134

22

26

1

2

6 199 704

14

416 361 150

11

46 592 000

72 005 294

46 456 199

117 312 724

1

2

1

3

4 428 200

10

758 507 978

21

49 525 000

167 532 691

393 098

1

93 101 399

1

5

3

1 177 413 834

100 1 051 445 078

100 127 657 920

100

44 232 502

100

3 629 619 985

100

Assistance as referred to in Art. 7(4) of Reg. (EC) No 1268/1999

23 803 764

21 257 056

2 580 860

894 251

73 380 000

TOTAL

1 201 217 598

1 072 702 134

130 238 780

45 126 753

3 702 999 985

32%

29%

4%

1%

100%

45