Special Report No 6/2009 #European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed
Date: 2009-05-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, aid programme, aid to disadvantaged groups, food aid, management audit

EUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

6
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

EUROPEAN UNION FOOD AID FOR 
DEPRIVED PERSONS: AN ASSESSMENT 
OF THE OBJECTIVES, THE MEANS 
AND THE METHODS EMPLOYED

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 6  

 2009

EUROPEAN UNION FOOD 
AID FOR DEPRIVED PERSONS: 
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 
OBJECTIVES, THE MEANS AND 
THE METHODS EMPLOYED

(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

2

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 6  

 2009

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009

ISBN 978-92-9207-340-4

doi: 10.2865/2420

© European Communities, 2009

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

I–IX  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1–17 

1–7  

8–13  

INTRODUCTION

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMME

OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS

14–17  

DISTRIBUTION CHAIN: THE CHARITABLE ORGANISATIONS

18–22  

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

23–75  

23–33  

23–24  
25–27  
28–31  
32–33  

34–47  

34–41  
42–47  

48–70  

48–59  
60–70 

71–75  

OBSERVATIONS

 THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME 
REMAIN VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?

THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES
WHEN INTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS TENUOUS
THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT
COORDINATION WITH OTHER SOCIAL POLICY MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPROVED

 THE MEANS AND METHODS EMPLOYED: ARE THE MEANS COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES 
SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?

BETTER TARGETING OF RECIPIENTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION’
 THE VARIETY OF FOOD MADE AVAILABLE IS CONSTRAINED BY THE INTERVENTION STORAGE LINK, 
AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY

THE PROGRAMME’S ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION: ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?

SHORTCOMINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES
TENDERING PROCEDURES NEED IMPROVING AND HARMONISING

REFORM PROPOSAL: A RECENT COMMISSION INITIATIVE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMME

76–85  

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

–  POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY
–  BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS AND ALLOCATION AMONG THE MEMBER STATES

ANNEX I 
ANNEX II 
ANNEX III  –  PRODUCTS ALLOCATED AND FINAL RECIPIENTS — ANNUAL PLAN 2005
ANNEX IV  –  NEEDS COMMUNICATED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION’S ALLOCATION 

OF INTERVENTION STOCKS

REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
4

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

I.
T h e   p r o g r a m m e   o f   f o o d   a i d   f o r   d e p r i v e d 
p e r s o n s   w a s   f i r s t   i n t r o d u c e d   i n   1 9 8 7 .   I t 
was designed to release products that were 
available in Community intervention stocks 
to charitable organisations for free distribu-
tion to persons in need.

IV.
T h e   a u d i t   f o c u s e d   o n   t h e   v a l i d i t y   o f   t h e 
intended aims in the context of an evolving 
market and social situation, the adequacy of 
the means made available, the programme’s 
impact, and the administrative and manage-
ment procedures.

II.
T h e   m e a s u r e   h a s   t w o   m a i n   o b j e c t i v e s :   a 
social one (to make a significant contribution 
to  the  well-being  of  deprived  persons)  and 
a   m a r k e t   o n e   ( s t a b i l i s a t i o n   o f   t h e   m a r k e t s 
of agricultural products through the reduc-
tion of intervention stocks). The budget for 
the programme was 307 million euro in 2008 
(for  19  Member  States)  and  is  increased  to 
500 million euro for 2009.

III.
The  paying  agencies,  responsible  for  inter-
vention  stocks  in  the  Member  States,  were 
g i v e n   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   f o r   m a n a g i n g   t h e 
p r o g r a m m e .   A t   o p e r a t i o n a l   l e v e l ,   t h e   p r o -
g r a m m e   i s   m a n a g e d   b y   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i -
s a t i o n s ,   w h i c h   r e c e i v e   a n d   d i s t r i b u t e   t h e 
foodstuffs to deprived persons. The signifi-
cant decline in intervention stocks in recent 
y e a r s   m e a n s   t h a t   t h e   b u l k   o f   t h e   p r o d u c t s 
for distribution had to be purchased on the 
market (85 % in 2008).

V.
The financing of the programme under CAP 
e x p e n d i t u r e   w a s   i n i t i a l l y   j u s t i f i e d   b e c a u s e 
of  the  use  of  intervention  stocks.  However, 
w h e n   i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   w e r e   r e d u c e d   t o 
a l m o s t   z e r o   i n   r e c e n t   y e a r s   t h e   l i n k   o f   t h e 
p r o g r a m m e   w i t h   a g r i c u l t u r a l   e x p e n d i t u r e 
b e c a m e   t e n u o u s .   P a r t i c i p a t i o n   i n   t h e   p r o -
g r a m m e   i s   v o l u n t a r y   w i t h   s o m e   M e m b e r 
States considering that the measure should 
not be financed from the EAGF budget.

VI.
The measure was designed to alleviate pov-
erty but not to eliminate it. In this regard the 
r e s o u r c e s   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e   c a n   o n l y   h a v e   a 
limited impact on the situation of individual 
d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s ,   o f f e r i n g   o n   a v e r a g e   t h e 
equivalent of one meal per month to its ben-
eficiaries. Therefore, in order to enhance its 
effectiveness, it is necessary to better target 
t h e   a i d   a n d   t o   e n s u r e   b e t t e r   c o o r d i n a t i o n 
w i t h   s o c i a l   p o l i c y .   F u r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e   e x i s t -
i n g   p r o v i s i o n s   c o n s t r a i n   t h e   v a r i e t y   o f   t h e 
p r o d u c t s   t o   b e   d i s t r i b u t e d ,   w h i l e   t h e   p r o -
c e d u r e s   a p p l i e d   i n   t h e   e n t i r e   d i s t r i b u t i o n 
c h a i n   r e s u l t   i n   d i f f e r e n t   t r e a t m e n t   o f   f i n a l 
beneficiaries in terms of the quantity of food 
provided per person.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

5

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

IX.
As the Budgetary Authorities favour the con-
tinuation of the programme, the Court makes 
a   n u m b e r   o f   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   c o n c e r n i n g 
t h e   a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s   o f   f i n a n c i n g   t h e   p r o -
g r a m m e   u n d e r   C A P   e x p e n d i t u r e ,   t h e   n e e d 
f o r   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   m e a s u r e , 
the  integration  of  the  programme  into  the 
s o c i a l   p o l i c y   f r a m e w o r k ,   t h e   e x p a n s i o n   o f 
the  variety  of  the  products  distributed,  the 
n e e d   f o r   i m p r o v e m e n t   o f   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n 
methods as well as the management, moni-
toring and tendering procedures.

VII.
The fact that the programme is managed at 
operational level by thousands of charitable 
organisations, mainly staffed by volunteers 
and dealing with an unstable and not easily 
monitored target population, poses particu-
lar challenges for the administration of the 
scheme.  Monitoring  and  reporting  systems 
a t   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   l e v e l s 
have to be improved, as well as the method-
ology  for  allocating  the  financial  resources 
between the Member States. Finally, the ten-
d e r i n g   p r o c e d u r e s   e m p l o y e d   b y   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   d i f f e r   c o n s i d e r a b l y   a n d   d o   n o t 
ensure equal access to all EU operators and 
the broadest competition. Thus there is the 
r i s k   t h a t   b e s t   c o n d i t i o n s   a r e   n o t   a c h i e v e d 
a l w a y s   f o r   p r o d u c t s   w i t h d r a w n   f r o m   i n t e r -
vention stocks or for those purchased on the 
open  market.  It  is  also  considered  that  the 
b a r t e r i n g   a r r a n g e m e n t s   u s e d   a r e   c u m b e r -
some and difficult to control.

VIII.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   r e c e n t l y   m a d e   a   p r o -
p o s a l   t o   r e f o r m   t h e   p r o g r a m m e ,   w h i c h 
w o u l d   g o   s o m e   w a y   t o   a d d r e s s i n g   c e r t a i n 
of the weaknesses highlighted by the Court’s 
audit.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

INTRODUCTION

6

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMME

The origin of the programme for deprived persons goes back to 1987 
when Europe was affected by an exceptionally cold winter which had 
particularly  severe  consequences  for  the  most  vulnerable  individu-
a l s ,   i . e .   t h e   d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s .   I n   o r d e r   t o   a l l e v i a t e   t h e   h u m a n i t a r -
ian emergency the Community adopted measures to release various 
foodstuffs, particularly agricultural products which were available in 
the  Community  intervention  stocks 1,  to  charitable  organisations  for 
free distribution to the persons in need.

The measure was widely welcomed and subject to high demand. It was 
subsequently made permanent 2 and still applies today.

The programme was innovative for the EU in the sense that its key feature 
consisted in helping the most deprived persons by distributing food 
a i d   t o   t h e m   t h r o u g h   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   i n   t h e   f o r m   o f   e i t h e r 
prepared meals for immediate consumption or food packages.

The legal provisions governing the scheme define the most deprived 
person as follows 3 (see Box 1).

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1  Agricultural products bought-in 

under public intervention 

measures aiming to stabilise 

markets and ensure a fair standard 

of living for the agricultural 

community.

2  Council Regulation 

(EEC) No 3730/87 

(OJ L 352, 15.12.1987, p. 1).

3  Article 1 of Commission 

Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 

(OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50).

B O X   1

T H E   D E F I N I T I O N   O F  ‘M O S T   D E P R I V E D   P E R S O N S’

‘The most deprived persons’ means physical persons, whether individuals, families or groups composed 
of such persons, whose social and financial dependence is recorded or recognised on the basis of eli-
gibility criteria adopted by the competent authorities, or is judged to be so on the basis of the criteria 
used by charitable organisations and which are approved by the competent authorities.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
7

4  Technically, it is the number of 

people statistically identified with 

revenue below a threshold of 60 % 

of the median equivalised income. 

Relevant data is collected and 

provided by Eurostat.

5  Budgetary appropriations 

allocated to the programme 

are indicated in budget line 

05 02 04 01 of the EU budget.

5. 

6. 

7. 

This definition makes it difficult to quantify the programme’s target 
group. For the purpose of allocating the programme’s funds to Mem-
ber States, the Commission uses a categorisation known as the pop-
u l a t i o n   ‘ a t   r i s k   o f   p o v e r t y ’ .   T h i s   i s   a   r e l a t i v e   m e a s u r e ,   d e f i n e d   f o r 
each Member State as the persons with an income below 60 % of the 
average  income 4.  This  is  also  a  big  target  group,  with  one  person  in 
s i x   b e i n g   c l a s s i f i e d   a s   ‘ a t   r i s k   o f   p o v e r t y ’   w i t h i n   t h e   E U   a s   a   w h o l e 
(see Box 2).

The resources available for the programme for the years covered by 
the  audit,  were  216  million  euro  in  2005,  264  million  euro  in  2006, 
274 million euro in 2007 and 307 million euro in 2008 5. For 2009 this 
amount is 500 million euro.

Despite  the  increasing  budgetary  appropriations,  the  amount  avail-
able per person in the last three years was 6,24 euro/person in 2006, 
5,73 euro/person in 2007 and 5,83 euro/person in 2008 (see Annex II). 
These  modest  figures  per  potential  beneficiary  put  into  context  the 
programme’s potential impact.

Source: Charitable Organisations.

B O X   2

D E P R I V E D   P E R S O N S   I N  T H E   E U

In the European Union, around 80 million persons, equivalent to 16 % of the population of the EU-27 
are defined as at risk of poverty (see Annex I for details), while around 43 million people are at risk of 
food poverty6.

6 

Impact assessment SEC(2008) 2436/2 accompanying the Commission proposal for a Council 

Regulation as regards food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, 

page 11.

People at risk of food poverty is a Eurostat indicator defined as the percentage of people who 

cannot afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
7  Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 

laying down general rules 

as incorporated in Council 

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 

(OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) 

establishing a common 

organisation of agricultural 

markets, and Commission 

Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 

of 29 October 1992 

(OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50) 

laying down detailed rules for the 

supply of food from intervention 

stocks for the benefit of the 

most deprived persons in the 

Community.

8

OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT 
AND CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS

8. 

The conditions and procedures to be followed for the implementation of 
the programme are laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87, subse-
quently incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, and 
in the implementing Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 7. Over the course of 
the years the rules of the programme have been modified. In 1992, an 
amendment was introduced whereby the products distributed should 
not necessarily be those withdrawn from the intervention stocks, and 
the transfer of intervention stocks between Member States was made 
possible.  In  1995  it  was  decided  that,  in  cases  where  a  product  was 
temporarily  unavailable  in  Community  intervention  stocks,  Member 
S t a t e s   c o u l d   p u r c h a s e   s i m i l a r   p r o d u c t s   d i r e c t l y   o n   t h e   C o m m u n i t y 
market.

9.  Member States’ participation in the programme is on a voluntary basis 
with participating Member States having to notify their intention to 
the Commission each year and to communicate their perceived needs. 
T h e   n u m b e r   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   h a s 
increased in recent years: 10 in 2005, 15 in 2006, 18 in 2007 and 19 in 
2008.  Annex  II  shows  the  amounts  of  budgetary  appropriations  and 
financial allocations by Member State for the period 2005–2008.

10. 

11. 

The Commission establishes an annual plan including for each Member 
State  applying  the  measure,  the  maximum  financial  resources  to  be 
made available, the quantity of each agricultural product to be with-
drawn from Community intervention stocks and the amount available 
for each product.

The products withdrawn from intervention stocks are generally not in a 
suitable form for direct distribution to the recipients for immediate 
c o n s u m p t i o n   a n d   t h e r e f o r e   t h e y   h a v e   t o   b e   p r o c e s s e d / e x c h a n g e d 
a g a i n s t   f i n a l   f o o d   p r o d u c t s   ( s e e   B o x   3 ) .   T h i s   c r e a t e s   a   s i g n i f i c a n t 
c o m p l i c a t i o n   i n   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   i n s o f a r   a s   t h e 
o p e r a t i o n s   n e c e s s a r y   t o   o b t a i n   t h e   f i n a l   f o o d   p r o d u c t s   ( p r o c e s s e d 
food  against  products  from  intervention  stocks  and  purchases)  are 
subject to tendering procedures organised by the competent author-
ities of the Member States. The related transport costs from the sup-
plier to the organisations are also subject to tendering procedures.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
9

12. 

13. 

In recent years the quantities of products in the Community intervention 
stocks have decreased very significantly due to the changed market 
situation 8. Consequently, the stocks in intervention storage no longer 
cover  the  programme’s  needs  and  certain  products  for  distribution 
have to be purchased directly on the market. The value of the prod-
ucts bought in 2006 represented 18 % of the programme’s resources, 
while  in  2008  it  was  more  than  85 %.  For  the  annual  plan  2008  only 
sugar was available in intervention.

At the level of the Member States the plan is implemented under the 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   p a y i n g   a g e n c i e s 9,   w h i c h   a l s o   e x e r c i s e   e i t h e r 
directly, or via delegation to other services, the supervisory and con-
trol tasks 10.

B O X   3

E X A M P L E S   O F   P R O D U C T S  W I T H D R AW N 
F R O M   I N T E R V E N T I O N   S TO C K S   A N D   F I N A L 
P R O D U C T S   D I S T R I B U T E D

Intervention stocks

Products distributed

Rice

Cereals

Butter

Sugar

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

vaporised rice
white rice
rice with milk
rice biscuits

pasta
biscuits
breakfast cereals
fl our
barley groats
couscous

milk
milk products
cheese
butter

white sugar
jam

8  For more details please refer 

to Special Report No 11/2008 on 

the management of the European 

Union support for the public 

storage operations of cereals 

(http://www.eca.europa.eu).

9 

‘Paying agency’ is the body or 

the bodies accredited by a Member 

State in accordance with Council 

Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 

21 June 2005 on the financing of 

the common agricultural policy 

(OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1).

10  Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) 

No 3149/92 provides that checks 

should be carried out by the 

competent authorities at all stages 

of the implementation of the plan 

and at all levels of the distribution 

chain. The checks should cover at 

least 5 % of the quantity of each 

product to each implementation 

stage, except for the stage of 

actual distribution to the most 

deprived persons. Article 10 of 

the same Regulation sets out that 

Member States should send to the 

Commission an annual report on 

the implementation of the plan 

on their territory, also specifying 

the verification measures applied 

to ensure that the goods have 

achieved their intended objective 

and have reached the final 

recipients.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
10

DISTRIBUTION CHAIN: THE CHARITABLE 
ORGANISATIONS

14. 

The food aid is channelled to deprived persons mainly through charitable 
organisations, designated by the Member State concerned, to whom 
t h e   p r o d u c t s   a r e   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e   f r e e   o f   c h a r g e .   T h e s e   c h a r i t a b l e 
organisations  are  often  structured  around  three  levels  —  national, 
regional and local — and present different administrative structures 
( s e e   B o x   4 ) .   S e v e r a l   t h o u s a n d s   o f   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   a t   a l l 
levels  currently  participate  in  the  reception  and  distribution  of  the 
f o o d s t u f f s   t o   d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s ,   f o r   w h i c h   p u r p o s e   t h e   R e g u l a t i o n 
s t i p u l a t e s   t h a t   t h e   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   d i r e c t l y   l o o k i n g   a f t e r 
t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   s h a l l   b e   d e e m e d   t o   b e   t h e   f i n a l   r e c i p i e n t s   o f   t h i s 
distribution 11.

11  Article 5a of Regulation (EEC) 

No 3149/92.

B O X   4

T H E   O R G A N I S AT I O N S   PA R T I C I PAT I N G   I N  T H E   E U   P R O G R A M M E

The structure and responsibilities of the charitable organisations in the Member States audited are as 
follows:

1st level: ‘Designated’ by the national authorities organisations (e.g. Red Cross, Caritas, Federation of 
Food Banks, etc.). They act at national level as headquarters of lower level organisations for matters 
related to representation, contacts with the national authorities, coordination and supervision of the 
activities. They do not distribute aid to final recipients.

2nd  level:  Charitable  organisations  acting  at  regional/local  level  (e.g.  dioceses  Caritas,  food  banks, 
etc.). The majority of them belong to the network of the main organisations. They have the storage 
capacities and receive the foodstuffs and distribute them to lower level organisations and/or to final 
beneficiaries.

3rd level: Organisations operating locally and distributing the aid directly to the beneficiaries. There are 
up to several thousands in each Member State and their missions are wide and multiple. Very often these 
organisations belong to a network of the main charitable organisations, but also include independent 
organisations created at the initiative of local communities.

The  Commission  does  not  dispose  of  data  on  the  number  of  the  designated  and  other  charitable 
organisations which participate in the EU programme. In the Member States audited they numbered 
around 40 000. Details are shown below:

Type of charitable organisation

Spain

France

Italy

Poland

Designated organisations (1st level)

Organisations at regional/departmental level 
(2nd level)

Organisations of lower level distributing food 
to fi nal recipients (3rd level)

1

52

4

250–300

7

249

4

89

approx. 6 000 approx. 9 000

14 973

9 366

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
11

12  Charitable organisations also 

stressed that it would be necessary 

to increase the administration and 

logistics infrastructure (storage 

and distribution capacities and 

related manpower) for meeting 

the need to distribute increased 

quantities of products.

13  The Commission does not 

dispose of complete data for all 

Member States.

15. 

16. 

17. 

Hence, charitable organisations play a key role in the implementation 
of  the  programme.  While  the  programme  contributes  towards  their 
administrative costs to a limited extent (1 % of the value of the prod-
u c t s   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e ) 1 2,   t h e   d e s i g n a t e d   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   b e a r   m o s t   o f 
t h e i r   o w n   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d   o p e r a t i o n a l   c o s t s   f o r   t h e   r e c e p t i o n , 
storage and distribution of the goods to the final beneficiaries.

By their nature, the charitable organisations involved in the scheme are 
d i f f i c u l t   t o   b e   h e l d   a c c o u n t a b l e   i n   n o r m a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   t e r m s   a s 
they are mainly staffed by volunteers and deal with an unstable and 
n o t   e a s i l y   m o n i t o r e d   t a r g e t   p o p u l a t i o n .   T h e s e   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   p o s e 
particular challenges for the administration of the scheme.

The quantities of food provided by the EU programme generally represent 
only one element of the totality of the food products distributed for 
free  by  the  charitable  organisations  involved.  However,  for  certain 
charitable organisations operating at local level, the EU programme 
is  the  only  source  of  food  for  distribution  to  deprived  persons.  For 
the Member States and charitable organisations audited the follow-
ing figures were given 13 (see Box 5).

B O X   5

PA R T I C I PAT I O N   O F  T H E   E U   P R O G R A M M E  TO  T H E  TOTA L   Q UA N T I T I E S   D I S T R I B U T E D

Spain: In 2006 the quantities distributed by the designated organisation amounted to 60 048 tonnes, of 
which 32 660 (54 %) were from the EU programme and the remainder from other sources (food industry, 
wholesalers, markets, collect actions, etc.).

France: There is a national programme supplementary to the EU one. There is no exact data but it is 
estimated that the national programme represents about 6 % and the EU programme 30 % of the total 
quantities distributed.

Italy: There is no data on country level. For two organisations audited the EU programme covers almost 
100 % of the quantities distributed. For another organisation the EU participation is about 60 %.

Poland: There are no concrete global figures. EU programme covers approximately 60–70 % of food 
distributed by the two organisations audited (estimation).

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

12

18. 

The audit objective was to assess the programme ‘European Union food 
aid for deprived persons’ with reference to the relationship between 
o b j e c t i v e s ,   m e a n s   a n d   m e t h o d s   e m p l o y e d .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r ,   t h e   a u d i t 
examined whether the intended aims of the programme are still valid 
in the context of an evolving market and social situation. Furthermore 
the adequacy of the means made available and of the systems applied 
for measuring the programme’s impact on the beneficiaries was also 
assessed in terms of value, quantity and variety of products provided 
and  distributed.  Finally  the  audit  examined  the  administrative  and 
management procedures used for the implementation of the annual 
plans.

19. 

The main questions addressed in this report are the following:

(a) 

D o   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   r e m a i n   v a l i d   a n d   i s   t h e 
approach appropriate?

(b) 

A r e   t h e   m e a n s   c o m m e n s u r a t e   w i t h   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   s o u g h t   a n d 
adequately implemented?

(c) 

Are the procedures being applied as intended?

20. 

To answer these questions the audit work covered the data for meas-
uring  the  programme’s  impact  in  relation  to  each  of  the  objectives 
set, the selection and eligibility criteria for charitable organisations 
participating in the scheme and for the final beneficiaries, the imple-
mentation  of  the  annual  plans  by  all  stakeholders  involved  and  the 
m e c h a n i s m s   u s e d   f o r   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   f o o d s t u f f s   i n   t e r m s   o f 
quantity, quality and variety. Finally the system for establishing the 
needs, the allocation of the financial resources to the Member States 
and the procurement procedures for the final products to be supplied 
to charitable organisations for distribution were examined.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
13

21. 

22. 

The audit covered the management and monitoring of the programme at 
both the Commission and in selected Member States. The audit work 
focused on the analysis, documentation and testing of the procedures 
and  systems  applied  for  the  management  of  the  programme  by  the 
Commission, by the competent national authorities, and by some of 
t h e   d e s i g n a t e d   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   a t   n a t i o n a l ,   r e g i o n a l   a n d 
l o c a l   l e v e l   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e   a c t u a l   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   f o o d s t u f f s   t o 
deprived persons.

T h e   a u d i t   w a s   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   f o u r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   —   S p a i n ,   F r a n c e , 
I t a l y   a n d   P o l a n d   —   a c c o u n t i n g   f o r   m o r e   t h a n   7 2  %   o f   t h e   a n n u a l 
b u d g e t a r y   a p p r o p r i a t i o n s .   T h e   a u d i t   f o c u s e d   o n   t h e   p l a n s   f o r   t h e 
years 2006–2008.

Source: Charitable Organisations.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
OBSERVATIONS

14

THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: 
DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN 
VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?

THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES

The legal provisions 14 set for the measure the twin objectives of making a 
significant contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived 
c i t i z e n s   a n d   t h e   s t a b i l i s a t i o n   o f   a g r i c u l t u r a l   m a r k e t s   t h r o u g h   t h e 
disposal of part of the intervention stocks (see Box 6).

14  Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 

laying down general rules as 

incorporated in Regulation (EC) 

No 1234/2007.

The programme’s implementation responsibility has been given to the 
actors generally involved in the management of agricultural expendi-
ture, namely the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Devel-
opment within the Commission and, in the Member States, the paying 
agency dealing with agricultural payments, and responsible for man-
aging the intervention stocks.

23. 

24. 

B O X   6

T H E   O B J E C T I V E S   O F  T H E   P R O G R A M M E

‘The Community has through its intervention stocks of various agricultural products the potential means 
to  make  a  significant  contribution  towards  the  well-being  of  its  most  deprived  citizens;  it  is  in  the 
Community interest, and in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy, to exploit this 
potential on a durable basis until the stocks have been run down to a normal level […].’

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
15

25. 

26. 

27. 

WHEN INTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK 
WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS TENUOUS

The current programme has been in application since 1987. The initial 
provisions favoured the financing of the programme using interven-
t i o n   s t o c k s   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   o f   t h e   c o m m o n   a g r i c u l t u r a l 
p o l i c y   ‘ t o   r u n   d o w n   t h e   s t o c k s   t o   a   n o r m a l   l e v e l ’ 1 5.   H o w e v e r ,   t h e 
reform of the CAP in recent years, whereby intervention measures for 
certain products are being phased out, and the decrease of existing 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   t o   z e r o ,   h a v e   c o n s i d e r a b l y   a f f e c t e d   t h e   i m p l e -
mentation of the programme: the majority of the products now have 
to be purchased directly on the market 16.

Nevertheless, a tenuous link is still maintained with agricultural expendi-
ture insofar as the products made available to deprived persons are 
still  those  derived  from  agricultural  products  eligible  for  interven-
tion  storage.  This  complicates  the  management  of  the  measure  and 
restricts the choice of products to be distributed. Finally, the nature of 
the aid, i.e. a contribution to alleviate poverty, is difficult to reconcile 
with the general nature of EU agricultural expenditure, whereby the 
support is targeted at farmers and/or the farming industry and eligible 
beneficiaries are entitled to receive a specific amount of aid.

The issue of the appropriateness of treating the expenditure for the pro-
gramme as part of the Common Agricultural Policy has been raised in 
the  Management  Committee  meetings.  Certain  Member  States  who 
do not participate in the EU food programme have voted against the 
approval of the annual plans in the recent years considering this aid 
incompatible with the CAP’s focus and type of financing 17.

15  See Box 6.

16  For the annual plan 2008 only 

sugar was available in intervention 

and the rest of the products had 

to be mobilised on the market. 

A forecast published by DG AGRI 

in July 2007, ‘The Prospects For 

Agricultural Markets and Income 

in the European Union’, for the 

period 2007–2014, is that:

 —

for cereals ‘public stocks would 

largely disappear in the early 

projection period’,

 —

sugar is ‘expected to reach 

balance as from 2010’,

 —

for butter ‘emptied intervention 

stocks in the first semester 

of 2007 will remain empty until 

the end of 2014’ and

 —

for skimmed milk powder (SMP) 

‘the market is expected to 

remain balanced throughout 

the projection period with no 

necessity to offer products for 

intervention buying-in’.

17  Minutes of the meetings of 

the Management Committee for 

Cereals (adoption of the annual 

plan 2008):

‘DE: finds that there is no longer 

any consistency between the 

Council Regulation and the 

Implementing Regulation;

NL, SE, UK: do not want a social 

measure to be financed by the CAP 

budget;

NL: likewise because they do 

not want a social measure to 

be financed by the Community 

budget.’

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
16

THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT

28. 

Although the contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived 
citizens was linked to the stabilisation of agricultural markets through 
the disposal of intervention stocks, recent developments mean that 
the social aim of the measure has become much more predominant. 
As early as 1998, the Commission published an evaluation of the Euro-
pean Community Food Programmes which concluded that the social 
aspects of the measure were regarded as a more important objective 
than that as an instrument of market regulation (see Box 7). Indeed, 
the  evaluation  considered  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  measure  in 
terms  of  market  regulation  was  doubtful  since,  on  the  one  hand  in 
some cases a proportion of the products withdrawn from Community 
stocks returned indirectly back to intervention and, on the other hand, 
the  measure  was  considerably  more  expensive  than  export  refunds 
as a method of reducing the structural surplus.

B O X   7

CO M M I S S I O N ’S  1998  E VA LUAT I O N   ( M A I N   CO N C LU S I O N S   A N D   R E CO M M E N DAT I O N S )

‘The social purpose of the measure is clearly set out in the regulations. […] its usefulness in the con-
text of persistent widespread poverty in Europe is attested by the charities […]. When the measure 
was introduced another, admittedly secondary, purpose was to help run down the Community’s huge 
and costly intervention stocks […]. The measure can therefore still be regarded as a market regulation 
instrument’.

‘The Member States […] are well able to make effective use of the resources […]. On the other hand, 
there is some doubt about the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation. […] in some 
cases, possibly a large proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returns indirectly 
to intervention’.

‘While there is no doubt that it [the aid] is an efficient instrument of social aid, it is considerably more 
expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus […]’.

‘[…] in view of Europe’s serious poverty problem and of the unquestionable usefulness of the aid to the 
needy, continuation of the measure should certainly be recommended and possibly even an increase in 
the financial resources devoted to it. […] The Council has made it clear […] that the social aspects were 
regarded as more important than the role of the measure as an instrument of market regulation.’

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
17

29. 

30. 

31. 

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, which consolidated Regulation (EEC) 
N o   3 7 3 0 / 8 7 ,   a l s o   c o n s i d e r s   t h e   s c h e m e   ‘ a n   i m p o r t a n t   s o c i a l 
measure’ 18.

18  Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, 

recital 18.

A similar perception of the social aim of the measure is shared by the 
managing authorities of the Member States visited during the audit, 
which expressed the importance of the social dimension of the pro-
gramme being well coordinated at national level.

Furthermore, as recently as April 2006, the European Parliament adopted 
a declaration ‘on supplying approved charities working to implement 
the European food aid programme for the most deprived’. In its dec-
l a r a t i o n ,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t   r e g a r d e d   t h e   m e a s u r e   a s   a   p a r t 
of the aim of reducing poverty, and invited the Commission and the 
Council to maintain and increase the aid with certain implementing 
adaptations (see Box 8).

B O X   8

E P ’S   D E C L A R AT I O N   M A I N   P O I N T S

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

recognise the fact that there are undernourished people in the European Union and acknowledge 
the need to meet their food requirements,

place the European food aid programme on a permanent footing and provide a global multiannual 
budget allocation,

open the measure up to new sectors such as pork, poultry and eggs,

include  in  the  programme  innovative  measures  to  ensure  the  distribution  of  balanced  food 
rations,

regard food aid as part of the aim of reducing poverty,

modify the rules so as to allow:

• 

• 
• 

for the stocks reserved for the programme to be build up, i.e. set aside for and allocated to the 
most deprived,
for the bartering procedure to be extended,
for products that are not available as part of intervention stocks to be bought on the Community 
market.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
18

COORDINATION WITH OTHER SOCIAL POLICY 
MEASURES SHOULD BE IMPROVED

The legislator clearly established that the food aid programme should be 
regarded as a contribution, albeit significant, towards the well-being 
of  its  most  deprived  citizens 19  (see  Box  6).  Hence,  this  contribution 
should be coordinated and create synergies with the other policies, 
schemes  and  actions  set  up  at  both  Community  and  Member  States 
levels to meet better the needs of the most deprived persons.

19  Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87.

At the level of the Member States audited, the managing authorities are 
the paying agencies for agricultural expenditure. With the exception 
o f   F r a n c e ,   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a u d i t e d   t h e r e   w a s   n o   e v i d e n c e   o f 
close cooperation between the paying agency and other key actors for 
social actions such as the ministries of social affairs. Such co operation 
is  necessary  for  better  understanding  and  meeting  the  needs  of  the 
charitable organisations and of the deprived persons.

THE MEANS AND METHODS EMPLOYED: ARE THE MEANS 
COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES SOUGHT 
AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?

BETTER TARGETING OF RECIPIENTS NEEDED 
TO ACHIEVE ‘SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION’

L O W  I M P A C T  O F  T H E EU  A I D

The large number of potential beneficiaries and the relatively low level 
of  available  resources  mean  that  beneficiaries  need  to  be  targeted 
t o   a l l o w   t h e   m e a s u r e   t o   h a v e   a n y   s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   t a r g e t 
population.

As shown in table in Annex II the budgetary appropriations per poten-
t i a l   b e n e f i c i a r y   a m o u n t s   t o   a b o u t   s i x   e u r o   p e r   p e r s o n   p e r   y e a r .   O n 
the  other  hand  the  Commission,  in  its  impact  assessment,  indicates 
that  in  2006  more  than  13  million  people  in  15  Member  States  ben-
e f i t e d   f r o m   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   a n d   e s t i m a t e s   t h a t   t h e   c o s t   o f   a   s i n g l e 
meal  offered  by  charities  is  at  least  two  euro.  This  implies  that  the 
p r o g r a m m e   c o n t r i b u t e s   t o   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   a   m a x i m u m   o f   t h r e e 
meals  per  year  for  each  potential  deprived  person,  or  an  average  of 
12 meals per year for each actual beneficiary of the aid.

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
19

20  Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, 

recital 18.

21  Points 4 and 6.5 of 

Commission staff working 

document SEC(2008) 2436/2 

accompanying the Proposal for 

a Council Regulation amending 

Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 

on the financing of the common 

agricultural policy and Regulation 

(EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 

a common organisation of 

agricultural markets and on 

specific provisions for certain 

agricultural products (Single 

CMO Regulation) as regards food 

distribution to the most deprived 

persons in the Community 

(COM(2008) 563 final).

36.  While the EU programme in certain Member States accounts for more 
t h a n   5 0  %   o f   t h e   f o o d   d i s t r i b u t e d   t o   d e p r i v e d   c i t i z e n s   ( s e e   B o x   5 ) , 
the  Court  considers  that  a  programme  which  offers,  as  a  maximum, 
the equivalent of one meal per month to its beneficiaries on average 
i s   u n l i k e l y   t o   m e e t   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   o f   t h e   l e g i s l a t o r ,   n a m e l y   t h a t   o f 
making a ‘significant contribution towards the well-being of its most 
deprived citizens’ 20.

37. 

38. 

39. 

In this respect, it would ideally be necessary to improve selection criteria 
a n d   o r   p r i o r i t i e s   a m o n g s t   p o t e n t i a l   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a s   r e c o m m e n d e d 
by  the  impact  assessment 21;  otherwise  the  contribution  of  the  pro-
gramme to the well-being of the most deprived persons will inevitably 
be  negligible.  It  is  important  to  recognise,  however,  that  charitable 
o r g a n i s a t i o n s ,   b y   t h e i r   v e r y   n a t u r e ,   m a y   n o t   b e   a b l e   o r   w i l l i n g   t o 
adopt restrictive distribution policies.

U N C L E A R  E L I G I B I L I T Y  A N D  S E L E C T I O N  C R I T E R I A

In order to maximise the impact of the aid it is necessary to define work-
able priorities, both in view of selecting the charitable organisations 
which  will  channel  the  aid,  and  regarding  categories  and/or  groups 
of the population who will receive the food aid.

The auditors found that in practice Member States have often without 
formalised  procedures  designated  a  small  number  of  organisations 
operating nationwide, in which lower level organisations participate. 
Precise data on the number of the designated charitable organisations 
with  which  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  cooperate  for  the 
implementation of the annual plans are not available. The charitable 
o r g a n i s a t i o n s   a t   r e g i o n a l   l e v e l   a u t o m a t i c a l l y   p a r t i c i p a t e   i n   t h e   E U 
programme as being members of the main charitable organisations. 
They have certain independence in establishing the criteria they apply 
for  accepting  lower  level  organisations  for  the  distribution  of  food 
aid.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
20

40. 

41. 

Furthermore, according to the legal provisions, the beneficiaries’ eligi-
bility criteria should be based on ‘recorded or recognised social and 
financial dependence’. Accordingly, national authorities should adopt 
such criteria or to approve criteria used by charitable organisations. 
Member  States  are  also  required  to  notify  the  Commission  annually 
o f   t h e   e l i g i b i l i t y   c r i t e r i a   t o   b e   m e t   b y   r e c i p i e n t s .   T h e   C o u r t   f o u n d 
t h a t   n o   s u c h   p r e c i s e   e l i g i b i l i t y   c r i t e r i a   w e r e   f i x e d   b y   t h e   M e m b e r 
States. The criteria communicated annually to the Commission 22 are 
rather a typology of the persons assisted rather than quantitative or 
qualitative selection criteria (see Box 9).

22  Pursuant to Article 1(2) of 

Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

Finally the Court found that there were significant differences in the 
frequency  of  reception  of  the  aid  (some  persons  having  occasional 
meals provided compared to people in social institutes or to families 
receiving food aid or parcels on a regular basis).

Source: Charitable Organisations.

B O X   9

E X A M P L E S   O F   E L I G I B I L I T Y   C R I T E R I A   U S E D   BY   C H A R I TA B L E   O R G A N I S AT I O N S

• 

• 

• 

Economic criteria: homelessness, poverty, unemployment …

Social criteria: immigrants, elderly people, large families …

Health criteria: illnesses, handicapped.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
21

THE VARIETY OF FOOD MADE AVAILABLE 
IS CONSTRAINED BY THE INTERVENTION STORAGE LINK, 
AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY

The distribution of the foodstuffs by the charitable organisations to 
d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s   m a y   t a k e   d i f f e r e n t   f o r m s   d e p e n d i n g   o n   t h e   s p e -
cific activities of the charitable organisation (meals offered in public 
canteens, meals offered in nurseries and hospices, packages of food 
delivered to individuals and families, etc.).

23  Article 4(1)(b) and 4(2a) of 

Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

24  In particular they expressed 

the need for food products such 

as oil, tomato pasta, meat, frozen 

vegetables.

The origin of the measure and its link with the distribution of foodstuff 
historically  available  from  Community  stocks  also  led  to  rules  gov-
e r n i n g   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   w h i c h   i m p o s e   c o n s t r a i n t s   o n   t h e   v a r i e t y   o f 
final products that may be acquired and distributed to the deprived 
persons.

The legal provisions 23 stipulate that the supply of products mobilised 
on the Community market must belong to the same product group as 
the product temporarily unavailable in the intervention stocks. Up to 
September 2007 products from intervention stocks had to represent 
at  least  40 %  of  the  net  weight  of  the  food  product  to  be  supplied. 
Given the fact that in the course of the years some products have no 
longer  been  taken  into  intervention  (e.g.  beef,  olive  oil),  the  choice 
of products available for distribution to deprived persons has become 
limited.

The Court found that several charitable organisations participating in 
t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   c o n s i d e r e d   i t   a   p r i o r i t y   t o 
enlarge the variety of the products offered to allow the preparation 
of balanced meals 24.

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
22

46. 

The auditors also found that a wide variety of systems and methodolo-
gies are used to distribute foodstuffs from the managing authorities 
t o   d e s i g n a t e d   o r g a n i s a t i o n s ,   f r o m   t h e r e   t o   l o w e r   l e v e l   c h a r i t a b l e 
organisations and finally to deprived persons (see Box 10).

B O X   1 0

D I S T R I B U T I O N   M O DA L I T I E S

In Member States where more than one designated organisations are operating, the allocation of the 
foodstuffs among them is based on predetermined standard percentages applied and un-revised for 
many years (France, Poland). In Italy designated organisations are not involved and the distribution of 
the final products is made directly to regional level organisations on the basis on specified parameters 
(number of interventions and applications).

For the distribution of the food from the designated national organisations to the lower level organi-
sations again a multiplicity of systems and in some cases factors are used. In Spain the distribution is 
based on certain coefficients set by the designated organisation. In Poland the organisations visited 
apply their own systems. For example one organisation has set a quantitative target, which is 35 kg of 
food per person per year. In France each designated organisation applies its own system. For example 
one organisation allocates the resources to 79 second level organisations on the basis of a factor called 
‘coefficients K’ which is determined ‘according to certain criteria: population of the department, number 
of jobseekers, number of long-term jobseekers, number of recipients of minimum welfare income for 
the unemployed’. Another organisation distributes the food to 98 federations proportionally to the 
number of beneficiaries declared.

The distribution of the foodstuffs to the final recipients by the charitable organisations and the fre-
quency of deliveries are based on their own criteria and logistical capacities. In some cases charitable 
organisations  suggest  certain  criteria.  For  example  in  Poland  one  organisation  has  proposed  some 
standards for each delivery to an individual, e.g. milk at least 15 l per person and delivery, flour at least 
5 kg per person and delivery.

In most of the cases the charitable organisations distribute whatever they have received on the basis of 
their own criteria and in some cases on the principle of equal treatment of the persons in need, i.e. the 
quantity of the available products is distributed in equal parts to each person adhered to the organisa-
tion or requesting the aid.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
23

47. 

Specifically, in the entire distribution chain there are no common stand-
ards,  guidelines  or  indications  at  Community  or  national  level  con-
cerning the quantity and the variety of products to be distributed per 
person.  The  Court  found  that  the  quantities  distributed  per  person 
in each Member State and among the charitable organisations of the 
s a m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e ,   d i f f e r   c o n s i d e r a b l y .   S u c h   a   d i v e r s e   a p p r o a c h 
i n c r e a s e s   t h e   r i s k   o f   n e g l i g i b l e   i m p a c t   a n d   l e a d s   t o   u n e q u a l   t r e a t -
ment between final recipients of the aid (see Box 11). Annex III shows 
the products and quantities allocated by Member State and per final 
recipient for the annual plan 2005, for which data on final recipients 
are available.

B O X   1 1

E X A M P L E S   O F   Q UA N T I T I E S   O F   P R O D U C T S   D I S T R I B U T E D   P E R   P E R S O N

Spain: Distribution statistics for the 2007 plan show that on average 49,88 kg of products per registered 
recipient were distributed; with a minimum of 28,24 kg/person in one food bank and a maximum of 
89,16 kg/person in another.

Italy: Two organisations active in the same area distributed the following quantities of pasta to their 
beneficiaries:

Organisation

2006

2007

A

B

1,71 kg/person

9,68 kg/person

2,29 kg/person

14,44 kg/person

Poland: The annual average distribution per person (2006) was:
24,95 kg by one designated organisation;
12,59 kg by another organisation.

A third organisation distributed 6,72 kg per person in the region of Dolnoslaskie, while in the region of 
Lodzkie it distributed 78,03 kg per person.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
24

THE PROGRAMME’S ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION: 
ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?

SHORTCOMINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES

N O  O P E R A T I O N A L  S U B- O B J E C T I V E S

48.  Member States and the Commission share the responsibility to ensure 
that the programme is effective. Article 27 of the Financial Regulation 
(EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002 25  provides  among  others  that  specific, 
measurable,  achievable,  relevant  and  timely  objectives  shall  be  set 
for all sectors of activity covered by the EU budget.

49. 

50. 

51. 

The Court found that the objectives stipulated by the governing Com-
m u n i t y   r e g u l a t i o n s ,   w h i c h   a r e   e s s e n t i a l l y   h i g h - l e v e l   g l o b a l   o b j e c -
tives,  have  not  been  further  developed  and  detailed  into  workable, 
measurable targets or sub-objectives.

Given this vagueness in the objectives, it is not surprising that, not-
withstanding the legal obligation 26, neither the Commission nor the 
Member  States  have  set  any  performance  indicators  to  monitor  the 
achievement of objectives 27.

M A N A G E M E N T  I N F O R M A T I O N  C O M M U N I C A T E D  T O  T H E C O M M I S S I O N

Community regulations require that Member States transmit to the Com-
mission a report on the implementation of the plan not later than 30 
of June each year (n+1). It should provide important information on 
the implementation of the plan and its verification 28.

25  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

26  Article 27 of Regulation (EC, 

Euratom) No 1605/2002, Financial 

Regulation, provides that 

achievement of objectives shall 

be monitored by performance 

indicators for each activity and 

information shall be provided 

by the spending authorities to 

the budgetary authority. Such 

information, as referred to in 

Article 33(2)(d), shall be provided 

annually and at the latest in the 

documents accompanying the 

preliminary draft budget.

27  In some Member States visited 

the opinion was expressed that 

the social objectives set by the 

Community regulations are more 

of a ‘philosophical nature’ than 

real measurable objectives.

28  The Report should indicate the 

amounts of products withdrawn 

from intervention stocks, the 

type, quantity and value of goods 

distributed, the transport and 

transfer costs and the number 

of recipients. The report should 

also specify the verification 

measures applied and the type 

and number of checks carried 

out, the results obtained and any 

cases of penalties imposed. It 

should also include the number of 

recipients over the course of the 

year (Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) 

No 3149/92).

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
25

The Court examined the reports required to be sent by the Member States 
for the period under audit and found that reports are sometimes late 
or incomplete. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Commis-
sion makes a proper analysis and use of them.

29  In one Member State, the 

auditors also found errors 

in the number of recipients 

communicated by the charitable 

organisations.

The auditors also found that the figures on final recipients provided 
in  the  report  are  in  many  cases  estimations  made  by  the  charitable 
organisations and are not based on common standards or definitions 
of  beneficiaries  or  criteria  (recipients  are  recorded  irrespectively  of 
the frequency and the type and quantity of food received) 29.

E S T I M A T I O N  O F  B U D G E T A R Y  A P P R O P R I A T I O N S  A N D  A L L O C A T I O N 
O F  R E S O U R C E S  B E T W E E N M E M B E R S T A T E S

The Court analysed the procedure used by the Commission to establish 
t h e   b u d g e t a r y   a p p r o p r i a t i o n s   n e c e s s a r y   f o r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
t h e   p r o g r a m m e   a n d   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   r e s o u r c e s   a m o n g s t   M e m b e r 
States.

The budgetary appropriations are allocated to the Member States based 
on two criteria:

(a) 

the  first  is  the  needs  communicated  by  the  Member  States  plus 
t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   c o s t s   ( 1  % )   a n d   t h e   t r a n s p o r t   c o s t s   ( 4  %   a n d 
4,5 % from 2008); and

(b) 

the second is the population considered ‘at risk of poverty’, as a 
percentage of the entire population of each Member State.

Taking into consideration both criteria the final allocations to the Mem-
b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   a d j u s t e d   t o   t h e   a v a i l a b l e   b u d g e t a r y   a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . 
However, the second criterion does not necessarily result in the most 
effective use of the resources over the EU as a whole. Those classified 
under  this  category  in  a  relatively  high  income  country  are  likely  to 
be  better  off  than  many  people  falling  outside  the  classification  in 
countries with low income per capita.

52. 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56. 

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
26

57. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Regulation 30 that Member States’ 
reports on the execution of the annual plans are taken into considera-
tion when allocating resources among the Member States, the Court 
found evidence that this had been done in only one case. Additionally, 
the  criteria  used  to  allocate  resources  do  not  consider  elements  of 
t h e   p o p u l a t i o n   n o t   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   s t a t i s t i c a l   d e f i n i t i o n ,   e . g .   n o n -
registered immigrants and refugees.

58.  With regard to the annual needs notified to the Commission by the Mem-
ber  States,  in  general  they  are  estimations  fixed  at  the  higher  level 
of the managing bodies, without necessarily consulting the charita-
ble organisations involved. This means that the resources requested 
are  not  based  on  real  needs  and  rather  reflect  anticipated  possible 
allocations.

30  Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) 

No 3149/92 stipulates that for 

the purposes of allocating the 

resources among Member States, 

the Commission shall take account 

of the best estimates of the 

number of most deprived persons 

in the Member States concerned 

and of how operations were 

carried out and the uses to which 

resources were put in previous 

financial years, on the basis in 

particular of the reports provided 

for in Article 10 of the same 

Regulation.

B O X   1 2

N E E D S   A N D   A L LO C AT I O N   O F   R E S O U R C E S

The needs are expressed in quantities of products in intervention stocks and their value is estimated 
by the Commission using the buying-in price.

The table below shows the needs expressed by the participating Member States in financial terms and 
the  total  financial  resources  made  available  by  the  Commission  (administrative  and  transport  cost 
included).

Needs of Member States compared to allocations:

Year

Number of participating Member States

Estimated needs (million euro)

Allocated fi nancial resources (million euro)

Percentage

* 

Initial allocation.

2006

15

307,2

259,4

84 %

2007

18

338,7

258,9*

76,4 %

2008

19

313,9

294,5**

93,8 %

**  Before the increase of the allocation by 10 million euro decided in February 2008.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
27

59. 

60. 

61. 

The Court compared the needs notified by the Member States with the 
financial allocations made and also analysed (see Annex IV) the quan-
tities of products in intervention stocks requested, as needed for the 
implementation of the plans, and those allocated by the Commission. 
The amounts allocated in the last 3 years were lower than requested 
( s e e   B o x   1 2 ) .   I n   r e l a t i o n   t o   p r o d u c t s   a n d   q u a n t i t i e s ,   t h e   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   v e r y   o f t e n   d i d   n o t   o b t a i n   w h a t   t h e y   d e m a n d e d .   I n   a d d i t i o n 
certain Member States were allocated products they initially did not 
request  (e.g.  butter  and  sugar  in  2006  and  2007)  and  were  not  allo-
cated  products  they  did  request  (e.g.  rice  and  butter  in  2007).  This 
c a l l s   i n t o   q u e s t i o n   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   i n   m e e t i n g 
expected needs.

TENDERING PROCEDURES NEED IMPROVING 
AND HARMONISING

For the procurement of the final products to be distributed, the compe-
tent national authorities are required to issue an invitation to tender. 
This procedure is valid for the two main types of supplies necessary 
for the implementation of the plan:

(a) 

products withdrawn from intervention stocks in unprocessed form 
or after packaging and/or processing; and

(b) 

final products mobilised on the market and paid for either in the 
form of products withdrawn from intervention stocks (bartering) 
or in monetary value.

The Court analysed the procedures applied for the procurement of the 
f i n a l   p r o d u c t s   t o   b e   s u p p l i e d   t o   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   f o r   d i s -
t r i b u t i o n   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a u d i t e d   a n d   e x a m i n e d   a   s a m p l e   o f 
tenders organised in the last years both for using products available 
in the intervention stocks and for direct purchase of products on the 
market.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
31  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.

32  E.g. Commission Regulation 

(EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 

laying down the procedures and 

conditions for the sale of cereals 

held by intervention agencies 

(OJ L 191, 31.7.1993, p. 76).

33  The ratio for exchange 

transactions reached 85 %, while 

the ratio for direct purchase is 

estimated at 94 %.

28

62. 

63. 

64. 

65. 

I N C O N S I S T E N T  A P P L I C A T I O N  O F  L E G A L  B A S E  A T M E M B E R S T A T E  L E V E L

Certain regulatory requirements concerning the tendering procedures 
t o   b e   a p p l i e d   a r e   s e t   i n   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E E C )   N o   3 1 4 9 / 9 2   ( e . g .   t y p e   o f 
products to be mobilised on the market, content of the invitation to 
tender,  restrictions,  etc.).  The  same  Regulation  requires  that  invita-
tions  to  tender  shall  guarantee  equal  access  to  all  operators  estab-
lished in the Community.

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 31 
establishes  the  coordination  of  procedures  for  the  award  of  public 
works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. 
In addition specific Community Regulations are in force for the sale 
of products held by intervention agencies 32. However, neither Regula-
tion (EEC) No 3730/87 nor Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92, as regularly 
amended, make any precise reference to the legal basis for the tenders 
to be organised by the Member States.

The Court’s auditors found that tendering procedures are organised by 
a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a u d i t e d .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   c a r r y   o u t   t h e   t e n d e r i n g 
procedures on the basis of the national legislation under conditions 
which do not always guarantee the transparency and equal access of 
operators at EU level.

I T  I S  E C O N O M I C A L L Y  M O R E  A D V A N T A G E O U S  T O  B U Y  T H E  P R O D U C T S 
O N  T H E  M A R K E T  T H A N  T O  U S E  I N T E R V E N T I O N  S T O C K S  A S  A  P R O X Y  F O R  P A Y M E N T S

The Court found that, in general, more advantageous prices are obtained 
i n   c a s e s   o f   d i r e c t   p u r c h a s e   o f   p r o d u c t s   o n   t h e   m a r k e t ,   c o m p a r e d 
with  using  intervention  stocks  as  a  proxy  for  payment  for  the  same 
products at the same time. For example, in 2007 in Poland, under the 
same tender procedure companies were invited to submit their bids 
f o r   d e l i v e r y   o f   a   p r o d u c t   ( a )   i n   e x c h a n g e   f o r   b u t t e r   f r o m   i n t e r v e n -
tion stocks and (b) via direct purchase. The comparison of the results 
s h o w s   t h a t   t h e   p r i c e   f o r   t h e   d i r e c t   p u r c h a s e   w a s   l o w e r   b y   a b o u t 
10 % 33.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
29

66. 

67. 

The Commission has detailed information on the market price of prod-
ucts in the context of the intervention mechanism 34. However, in the 
context  of  the  food  programme  for  deprived  persons  the  governing 
r u l e s 3 5  d o   n o t   f o r e s e e   t h a t   t h e   c o m p e t e n t   s e r v i c e s   o f   t h e   C o m m i s -
sion  are  informed  about  the  prices  and  conditions  achieved  by  the 
tendering procedures taking place in the Member States. As a result 
the Commission has no assurance that the most advantageous terms 
have been obtained.

T E N D E R  P R O C E D U R E S  A P P L I E D  B Y  T H E M E M B E R S T A T E S  D I F F E R  C O N S I D E R A B L Y

The Court found that national rather than EU tendering procedures are 
applied, with the result that they differ considerably between Mem-
ber States and even within the same Member State, where more than 
one  service  is  responsible  for  organising  the  tenders  (Italy,  France). 
In certain instances EU provisions are not respected. The differences 
concern important points of the tendering procedure such as the pub-
licity given to the invitations to tender, the deadline for the submis-
sion  of  the  offers,  the  guarantee  lodged  for  the  participation  of  the 
tenderers,  the  minimum  number  of  participants  and  the  evaluation 
methods and criteria used for awarding the contract (see Box 13).

34  The Commission follows and 

analyses market prices for a 

number of products in the context 

of adopting the invitation to 

tender procedures for the sale 

of agricultural products held 

by intervention agencies and 

the fixing of the minimum sale 

prices to be adopted by the 

corresponding management 

committee. Market prices are also 

published by Eurostat regularly.

35  The obligation of the Member 

States to send the Commission 

the models of the invitations to 

tender (Article 4(4) of Regulation 

(EEC) No 3149/92) was abolished 

by Commission Regulation (EC) 

No 1127/2007 (OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, 

p. 18).

B O X   1 3

D I F F E R E N C E S   I N  T E N D E R   P R O C E D U R E S   A N D   CO N D I T I O N S 
B E T W E E N   M E M B E R   S TAT E S   AU D I T E D

Spain

France36

Italy37

Poland

Publication in OJ

Submission deadline (days)

Participation guarantee

Minimum number of participants

Number of tenderers

Evaluation of prices vs. market

No

15

2 %

No

1–5

No

Yes

PA1: 22
PA2: 45

PA1: Yes
PA2: No

PA1: 8–19
PA2: 10

No

20

PA1: 5 %
PA2: 5 euro/tonne

PA1: 10 %
PA2: 15 euro/tonne

50 000 PLN
(14 200 euro)

No

PA1: 6–7
PA2: 3–4

PA1: No
PA2: Yes

Yes (2)

2–4

Acceptable prices/
quantities are 
indicated in the 
invitation to tender

No

1–9

No

36  France: Paying Agency 1: ONIEP (Office National Interprofessionnel de l’Élevage et de ses 

Productions); Paying Agency 2: ONIGC (Office National Interprofessionnel des Grandes Cultures).

37  Italy: Paying Agency 1: AGEA (Agencia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura); 

Paying Agency 2: Ente Nazionale Risi.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
30

68. 

69. 

70. 

71. 

The auditors found weaknesses in the tender procedures examined, such 
a s   l i m i t e d   p u b l i c i t y   o f   t h e   t e n d e r   i n v i t a t i o n s ,   l o w   n u m b e r   o f   p a r -
t i c i p a n t s   —   w h i c h   i n   s o m e   c a s e s   w a s   j u s t   o n e   —   s h o r t   t i m e   g i v e n 
between publication and the closing date for the submission of offer. 
Additionally, the evaluation of the offers and the award of contracts 
are based principally on comparative data of the offers received, with 
no systematic comparison with other sources of information such as 
market prices.

As such, the processes followed do not ensure the openness of the ten-
ders, the broadest competition and that the best conditions and prices 
are obtained. An analysis of the tenders examined in certain Member 
States has shown that the contracts for several products were awarded 
to a limited number of companies over several years.

The abovementioned examples illustrate the risk that the most advan-
t a g e o u s   c o n d i t i o n s   a r e   n o t   a c h i e v e d ,   p a r t i c u l a r l y   w h e n   b a r t e r i n g 
a r r a n g e m e n t s   a r e   a p p l i e d .   I n   s u c h   c a s e s ,   t w o   c o n s t r a i n i n g   f a c t o r s 
apply:

(a) 

t h e   n a t u r e   o f   t h e   b a r t e r i n g   a r r a n g e m e n t s   l i m i t   t h e   n u m b e r   o f 
parties potentially interested in participating; and

(b) 

the evaluation of the offers is difficult insofar as the paying agency 
cannot easily determine the expected yields which could be con-
sidered acceptable.

REFORM PROPOSAL: A RECENT COMMISSION INITIATIVE 
AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMME

A detailed analysis of the scheme was undertaken by the Commission 
starting  in  February  2008  for  the  preparation  of  a  proposal  for  the 
reform of the programme. An inter-service steering group was set up, 
whereby  17  directorates-general  were  invited  to  participate,  and  a 
broad consultation with the Member States, the charitable organisa-
tions,  academic  experts  in  the  field  and  a  public  online  survey  took 
place.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
38  Proposal for a Council 

Regulation COM(2008) 563/3.

39  CAP rules and especially those 

for the market support measures 

imply certain difficulties already 

identified by the Commission 

like multiannual planning, which 

is hardly compatible with EAGF 

financing, and the impossibility 

of transferring non-used 

appropriations to the following 

years.

31

72. 

73. 

74. 

As a result the Commission adopted in September 2008 a proposal for 
the amendment of the Council Regulation 38 and published an impact 
assessment  report  on  the  scheme.  This  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  new 
legal framework for the 2010 programme.

The main elements of the Commission proposals are:

(a) 

t w o   s o u r c e s   o f   s u p p l y :   i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   o r   p r o d u c t s   d i r e c t l y 
purchased from the market, with priority given to the use of suit-
able intervention stocks;

(b) 

w i d e r   v a r i e t y   o f   f o o d s   t o   b e   d i s t r i b u t e d :   t h e   p r o d u c t s   d i s t r i b -
uted would no longer be limited to those for which intervention 
applies;

(c) 

long-term perspective: in order to enhance its efficiency, the Com-
m u n i t y   f o o d   d i s t r i b u t i o n   p l a n   w o u l d   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d   f o r   a   t h r e e 
year period;

(d) 

clearer priorities: Member States would base their aid requests on 
national  food  distribution  programmes,  setting  out  their  objec-
tives and priorities;

(e) 

co-financing: the introduction of co-financing would underpin the 
cohesion  dimension  of  the  scheme,  ensure  proper  planning  and 
reinforce synergies between the various actors;

(f) 

r e i n f o r c i n g   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   r e p o r t i n g :   r e p o r t i n g   o b l i g a t i o n s   a t 
various levels would be increased.

The Court recognises the benefit of these Commission proposals, some 
of which, if implemented, would help to remedy certain weaknesses 
identified by this audit such as the need for better targeting the EU 
aid,  the  inclusion  of  the  programme  in  a  broader  social  policy,  the 
e n l a r g e m e n t   o f   t h e   v a r i e t y   o f   p r o d u c t s   t o   b e   d i s t r i b u t e d   a n d   t h e 
need  for  improving  management  and  administrative  systems,  espe-
cially tendering procedures. However, the Court emphasises that the 
reform of most of the markets under the CAP and the declining level 
of  the  intervention  stocks  in  recent  years  imply  that  there  is  a  need 
to  reflect  on  the  opportunity  of  continuing  to  finance  this  measure 
through CAP expenditure 39.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
32

75. 

In this respect the Court also wishes to draw atten-
tion to the fact that the programme as implemented 
d o e s   n o t   ‘ g i v e ’   a n y   r i g h t   o f   t h e   d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s 
t o   E U   a i d .   T h i s   i s   n o t   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   s u p p o r t   p r o -
v i d e d   t r a d i t i o n a l l y   b y   t h e   C A P   t o   t h e   a g r i c u l t u r a l 
community.  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  market  pur-
chases would make no distinction between domestic 
a n d   i m p o r t e d   p r o d u c t s   f u r t h e r   w e a k e n s   t h e   e f f e c t 
of  the  programme  in  terms  of  market  intervention, 
a s   a   m e a s u r e   d i r e c t l y   s u p p o r t i n g   t h e   p u r c h a s e   o f 
imported products is not in line with the objectives 
of the CAP.

Source: Charitable Organisations.

Source: Charitable Organisations.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

33

DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN 
VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?

THE PREDOMINANTLY SOCIAL OBJECTIVE REMAINS 
VALID, ALTHOUGH THE LINK WITH INTERVENTION STOCKS 
AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE 
HAS BECOME TENUOUS, …

Food aid for deprived persons was first introduced in 1987 as a reaction 
to  conditions  faced  by  deprived  persons  during  a  particularly  harsh 
winter. Although it had the twin objectives of making a ‘significant’ 
contribution to the well-being of the most deprived citizens and the 
stabilisation  of  agricultural  markets  through  the  disposal  of  part  of 
the substantial intervention stocks, its primary objective was consid-
ered to be a social measure. This was acknowledged in the evaluation 
of  the  measure  published  by  the  Commission  in  1998.  The  measure 
was  considered  appropriate  for  implementation  ‘on  a  durable  basis 
until the stocks have been run down to a normal level’.

The budgetary authorities consider that there is still a need for the aid 
as  a  social  measure.  In  effect,  it  is  estimated  that  some  16 %  of  the 
population of the Union accounting for some 80 million citizens fall 
into  the  definition  of  deprived  persons  used  by  the  Commission.  A 
European Parliament declaration in 2006 called for maintaining and 
increasing the aid as part of the efforts to reduce poverty.

The Commission’s reform proposal of September 2008 intends to improve 
t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   s o u n d   f i n a n c i a l   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   p r o -
gramme and contains elements, which, if implemented, will remedy 
c e r t a i n   w e a k n e s s e s   i d e n t i f i e d   b y   t h i s   r e p o r t .   H o w e v e r ,   t h e   r e f o r m 
proposes to continue using agricultural funds for a measure, which is 
not targeted to farmers or to the farming community and with several 
characteristics such as multiannuality and the non-compulsory nature 
of  support  to  deprived  persons,  which  are  not  compatible  with  the 
CAP and especially EAGF financing.

76. 

77. 

78. 

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
34

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   1

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   c o n s i d e r   w h e t h e r   i t   i s   a p p r o p r i a t e   t o 
continue financing such a measure from the Common Agricultural 
Policy.

… AND INTEGRATION WITH SOCIAL POLICIES 
AND COORDINATION WITH SIMILAR MEASURES 
WOULD ENHANCE THE APPROACH

79. 

In general the programme has operated with insufficient coordination 
and cooperation with other key actors for social actions in the Mem-
ber  States.  Such  cooperation  is  necessary  for  better  understanding 
and  meeting  the  needs  of  the  deprived  persons  and  the  charitable 
organisations implementing the programme.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   2

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n c o u r a g e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   t a k e   t h e 
ne cessary steps to embed the programme in the social policy frame-
w o r k   a n d   i m p r o v e   c o o r d i n a t i o n   a n d   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   o t h e r   k e y 
actors for social actions in order to increase the synergy between 
bodies experienced in managing such programmes.

ARE THE MEANS COMMENSURATE WITH THE OBJECTIVES 
SOUGHT AND ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED?

PRIORITIES AND TARGETING OF THE RECIPIENTS 
WOULD INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME, …

80. 

The measure was introduced primarily to alleviate the difficult situation 
of the most deprived persons, it was not designed to eliminate all food 
poverty. The impact of the scheme is limited in global terms since it 
offers the equivalent of one meal per month to its beneficiaries.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
35

81. 

There are no priorities established within the category of deprived per-
sons to specifically target the aid. Moreover, the charitable organisa-
tions that manage the programme at operational level, mostly staffed 
by volunteers, address a target group which is not sufficiently stable 
to facilitate full accountability for the aid received.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   3

I n   o r d e r   t o   i n c r e a s e   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   m e a s u r e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
should define workable priorities to select the recipients and inter-
m e d i a r i e s   o f   t h e   a i d ,   t a k i n g   d u e   a c c o u n t   o f   t h e   s p e c i f i c i t i e s   o f 
delivery mechanisms involving voluntary bodies and volatile target 
g r o u p s   t o   w h i c h   g e n e r a l l y   a c c e p t e d   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d   c o n t r o l 
mechanisms are difficult to apply.

…THE VARIETY OF PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED 
IS CONSTRAINED BY THE PROGRAMME’S LINK 
TO PRODUCTS ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC STORAGE MEASURES, …

82. 

Legal provisions allow the purchase of food products on the Community 
market  in  case  intervention  stocks  are  temporarily  not  available  for 
free distribution to deprived persons. However, food thus purchased 
on the market must belong to the same product group as the one in 
intervention stocks, which limits the choice of products available for 
distribution.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   4

T h e   r e g u l a t o r y   r e s t r i c t i o n   o f   f o o d s   f o r   d i s t r i b u t i o n   t o   p r o d u c t s 
eligible  for  intervention  storage  should  be  reconsidered  in  order 
to  increase  the  diversity,  complementarity  and  nutritional  value 
of the food provided.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
36

… AND DISTRIBUTION VARIES WIDELY

83. 

There is a wide variety of systems applied in the distribution chain from 
the managing authorities to charitable organisations and to deprived 
persons. There are no common standards, guidelines at EU or national 
level concerning the quantity and variety of products to be distribu–
ted per person. This increases the risk of low impact which may lead 
to an unequal treatment of the recipients of the aid.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   5

In  order  to  increase  the  impact  of  the  aid,  and  to  ensure  a  more 
e q u a l   t r e a t m e n t   o f   r e c i p i e n t s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   c o n s i d e r 
introducing a level of standardisation consistent with the charac-
teristics of the charitable organisations and of the target group.

ARE THE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED AS INTENDED?

MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PROCEDURES 
NEED TO BE IMPROVED, …

84. 

The overall objectives of the programme have not been translated into 
specific, measurable and achievable targets or sub-objectives either 
b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   o r   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   A s   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
reports of the Member States have, in several cases, been incomplete 
or  contained  inconsistent  data,  the  management  information  avail-
a b l e   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   o n   t h e   p r o g r e s s   t o w a r d s   t h e   p r o g r a m m e ’ s 
overall objectives is not sufficiently reliable.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
37

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   6

The Commission should encourage Member States to develop spe-
cific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives for the 
implementation of the programme as well as to define performance 
indicators to monitor the achievement of objectives. Furthermore, 
the Commission should review the reporting system of the scheme 
i n   o r d e r   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   a c c u r a t e   a n d   t i m e l y   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e 
target group and on implementation is available.

… AND TENDERING PROCEDURES 
NEED IMPROVING AND HARMONISING

85. 

Considerably different tendering procedures are applied in different 
Member States, which do not guarantee equal access to all EU opera-
tors  and  do  not  ensure  the  broadest  competition  nor  that  the  best 
conditions and prices are obtained. Furthermore, bartering arrange-
m e n t s   u s i n g   i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   a r e   i n a p p r o p r i a t e   a n d   n o t   a l w a y s 
cost-effective.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   7

In order to increase the openness of competition and to ensure that 
the best prices on the market are achieved, the Commission should 
better define the legal basis as well as implementing rules for the 
procurement  of  food  products  for  deprived  persons.  In  addition, 
t h e   b a r t e r i n g   a r r a n g e m e n t s   s h o u l d   b e   d i s c o n t i n u e d .   C o n s i d e r a -
tion should be given to the disposal of intervention stocks on the 
market and the resultant proceeds to be used as assigned revenue 
to purchase the required final products.

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 14 May 2009.

For the Court of Auditors
For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
38

A N N E X   I

P O P U L AT I O N   AT   R I S K   O F   P O V E R T Y 1

Member State (MS)

Total 
population 
(million)

Population 
at risk 
of poverty
( %)

Population at 
risk of poverty 
(million)

Participating 
MS Population 
at risk 
of poverty 
(million)

Percentage 
of budget

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

10,511

7,719

10,251

5,427

82,438

1,345

4,209

11,125

43,758

62,886

58,752

0,766

2,295

3,403

0,460

10,077

0,404

16,334

8,266

38,157

10,570

21,610

2,003

5,389

5,256

9,048

United Kingdom

TOTAL

60,393
492,852

15 %

15 %

10 %

12 %

13 %

18 %

20 %

20 %

20 %

13 %

19 %

16 %

19 %

21 %

13 %

13 %

15 %

11 %

12 %

21 %

20 %

18 %

12 %

13 %

12 %

9 %

18 %
16 %

1,577

1,158

1,025

0,651

10,717

0,242

0,842

2,225

8,752

8,175

1,577

1,158

1,025

0,242

0,842

2,225

8,752

8,175

11,163

11,163

0,436

0,715

0,060

1,310

0,061

8,013

2,114

3,890

0,240

0,123

0,436

0,715

0,060

1,310

0,061

1,797

0,992

8,013

2,114

3,890

0,240

0,701

0,631

0,814

10,871
79,292

3,00 %

2,20 %

1,95 %

0,46 %

1,60 %

4,23 %

16,63 %

15,53 %

21,21 %

0,83 %

1,36 %

0,11 %

2,49 %

0,12 %

15,23 %

4,02 %

7,39 %

0,46 %

0,631

1,20 %

52,627

100,00 %

1  Eurostat definition: Rate of risk of poverty (threshold: 60 % of median equivalent income after social transfers).

Source: Eurostat, July 2006.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

39

A N N E X   I I

B U D G E TA RY   A P P R O P R I AT I O N S   A N D   A L LO C AT I O N   A M O N G  T H E   M E M B E R   S TAT E S

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

8
0
0
2
f
o

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l
a

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

8
0
0
2
/
7
0
0
2

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

8
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

7
0
0
2
/
6
0
0
2

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

7
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

6
0
0
2
/
5
0
0
2

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

6
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

5
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

8
0
0
2
/
7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

7
0
0
2
/
6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

e
s
a
e
r
c
n

I

6
0
0
2
/
5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

5
0
0
2

)
o
r
u
e
(

1
0
4
0
2
0
5
0
m
e
t
i

t
e
g
d
u
B

%
0
2
1

,

0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
3

%
8
3

,

0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
2

%
2
2
2

,

0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
2

s
n
o
i
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
a
y
r
a
t
e
g
d
u
B

%
8
2

,

%
3
2

,

%
1
0

,

%
1
0

,

%
1
0

,

%
3
4

,

%
5
6
1

,

%
7
6
1

,

%
8
2
2

,

%
1
0

,

%
5
1

,

%
0
0

,

%
7
2

,

%
1
0

,

%
4
6
1

,

%
3
4

,

%
0
8

,

%
5
0

,

%
9
0

,

,

%
0
0
0
1

%
5
5
4

,

1
9
6
1
6
4
8

%
8
9
8

,

8
2
4
7
1
8
5

%
6
0

,

0
4
9
4
6
0
3

1
9
7
7
4
0
3

%
8
0
4
-

,

%
5
8
2
-

,

%
8
7
9

,

%
2
0

,

%
1
2

,

%
6
1
-

,

3
4
4
5
5
1

8
8
3
2
9
1

5
6
9
5
5
1

0
1
3
7
0
0
7

0
3
8
8
2
2
3
1

3
8
0
9
1
4
0
5

3
3
5
2
8
9
0
5

8
8
2
4
1
6
9
6

,

%
4
4
3
7

0
1
9
3
5
1

%
2
6
3

,

1
9
9
6
5
4
4

%
7
8
3
-

,

%
2
6
-

,

%
4
6
-

,

%
9
3

,

%
8
3
-

,

%
1
9
9
-

,

%
5
1
3

,

3
1
8
4
2
3

7
9
9
7
1
2

2
3
1
9
8
6
6

4
4
7
0
4
3
0
5

4
6
1
0
4
9
9
4

8
8
8
4
6
7
0
7

6
4
4
8
1

1
6
2
3
7
2
3

%
9
4
2

,

%
4
6
2

,

%
2
1
-

,

%
0
2
2

,

6
3
2
6
9
0
2

8
0
5
9
8
4
2

4
7
8
5
5
3

2
2
8
7
2
1
7

7
3
6
4
0
7
5

0
7
4
3
9
7
3
5

6
8
6
4
4
5
2
4

9
4
9
9
5
0
8
4

7
3
3
0
2
6
8
4

0
2
4
8
3
5
3
7

9
8
4
4
9
2
0
6

%
5
0

,

%
5
3

,

%
7
1
-

,

%
5
6
1

,

%
5
1
1
-

,

%
7
5
4

,

%
3
2
2
-

,

%
2
1

,

%
0
1
1

,

1
9
0
1
8

,

%
9
0
3
1

7
0
7
0
8

%
0
9
4
-

,

9
5
9
4
3

7
3
5
8
6

2
4
2
8
7
3

4
2
2
9
6
1
8

2
4
0
1
7
9
9
4

%
7
6
1

,

%
0
4
-

,

%
2
1
-

,

8
9
8
4
8
3

8
3
6
6
9
8
7

2
2
5
4
8
8
2
4

5
1
1
4
6
7
6

%
4
5
1

,

%
3
2
2

,

0
3
0
1
0
4

2
4
6
7
4
3

2
0
6
8
0
4
3
4

7
6
1
4
0
5
5
3

6
4
9
2
8
1
3
1

%
0
2
1

,

8
5
0
4
0
9
4
1

%
2
6

,

2
3
5
6
0
3
3
1

8
1
7
7
2
5
2
1

6
4
0
8
5
2
4
2

6
1
2
9
9
4
1

3
2
3
1
4
7
2

%
5
4
4

,

%
5
5
2
-

,

9
8
8
9
4
6
6
1

1
4
3
9
2
9
1

7
2
8
4
3
3
1

9
0
5
9
0
7
2

%
7
8
2

,

0
6
8
7
3
6
3

5
4
6
5
2
8
2

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
l
a
t
I

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

2
6
5
9
0
1
5
0
3

%
9
5

,

5
3
4
6
2
8
4
7
2

%
7
2
2

,

4
4
1
4
1
4
9
5
2

9
4
6
5
8
4
1
1
2

L
A
T
O
T

3
6
2
5

,

3
8
5

,

6
9
7
4

,

3
7
5

,

9
2
2
4

,

1
6
0
4

,

4
2
6

,

2
3
5

,

)
n
o
s
r
e
p
/
o
r
u
e
(
y
t
r
e
v
o
p
f
o
k
s
i
r

t
a

n
o
s
r
e
p
r
e
p
s
n
o
i
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

y
t
r
e
v
o
p
f
o
k
s
i
r

t
a
n
o
i
t
a
l
u
p
o
P

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

.
)
d
e
d
n
e
m
a

s
a
(

s
n
o

i
t
a

l

u
g
e
R

s
’

n
o

i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40

A N N E X   I I I

P R O D U C T S   A L LO C AT E D   A N D   F I N A L   R E C I P I E N T S
A N N UA L   P L A N  2005

Products allocated (tonnes)

Member
State

Recipients
(million)

Cereals

Rice

Butter

Milk 
powder

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Belgium

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Malta

Poland

Portugal

Finland

0,221

n/a

0,941

2,509

2,300

n/a

3,594

0,485

6 000

6 972

68 721

60 905

98 153

1 383

17 758

8 588

3 500

4 346

29 452

31 412

22 575

553

26 835

14 708

318

9 547

14 446

6 772

2 594

TOTAL

0,360
10,410

15 000
283 480

133 381

33 677

410

2 087

18 143

3 749

480

600
25 469

Products allocated per recipient (kg)

Member
State

Recipients
(million)

Cereals

Rice

Butter

Milk 
powder

(1)

(2)/(1)

(3)/(1)

(4)/(1)

(5)/(1)

Belgium

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Malta

Poland

Portugal

Finland

0,221

n/a

0,941

2,509

2,300

n/a

3,594

0,485

0,360
10,410

27,15

15,84

1,44

73,03

24,27

42,68

4,94

17,71

41,67
27,23

31,30

12,52

9,82

7,47

30,33

0,00
12,81

10,15

0,00

6,28

1,88

5,35

0,00
3,24

1,86

0,00

7,23

0,00

1,04

0,99

1,67
2,45

TOTAL

Total

(6)

10 228

13 405

107 720

110 460

135 174

1 936

55 114

26 370

15 600

476 007

Total

(6)/(1)

46,28

114,47

44,03

58,77

15,34

54,37

43,33

45,73

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

41

A N N E X   I V

N E E D S   CO M M U N I C AT E D   BY  T H E   M E M B E R   S TAT E S   A N D  T H E   CO M M I S S I O N ’S 
A L LO C AT I O N   O F   I N T E R V E N T I O N   S TO C K S

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

)
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
i
(

)
6
0
0
2
/
3
5
1
o
N

)
C
E
(
n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R
n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
g
n
d
n
e
m
a
g
n
d
u
l
c
n
i
(
6
0
0
2
n
a
l
P

i

i

r
a
g
u
S

r
e
t
t
u
B

e
c
i
R

s
l
a
e
r
e
C

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

%
1
1
1

0
0
0
2

0
0
5
3

7
4
8
4

0
0
7
1

0
0
3

0
0
5

0
7
2

%
5
9

%
5
5

%
0

0
3
2
7

3
4
7
2

0
0
6
7

0
0
0
5

5
3
1

%
0
6

%
7
6

%
0
8

0
0
6

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
4
1

%
1
1
1

0
0
6

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
3

0
0
6
7
1

0
4
5

%
4
6

%
5
7

7
8
5
3
6

7
7
8
1

%
7
0
1

8
0
6
5
8

%
6
8

%
3
9

7
8
2
7
1

2
6
2
1

%
0
0
1

0
0
5
8
1

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
5

0
0
0
5

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
6
1

%
6
5

6
0
7
9
1

0
0
0
5
3

0
0
0
6
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
5
2

0
0
0
0
8

0
0
0
0
2

0
5
3
1

0
0
5
8
1

%
3
4

3
3
8
6

0
0
0
6
1

%
3
3
1

0
0
0
0
2

%
0
5
1

%
0
0
1

%
0

%
0
9

0
5
4

0
2
1

0
6
5
3
1

4
6
5
0
1

0
0
3

0
2
1

%
0
0
1

0
0
8
2

0
0
8
2

%
5
3
1

1
2
1
2
1

0
0
0
9

0
5
2
3

%
0
5
1

0
0
5
7

0
0
0
5
1

%
2
1
1

0
0
0
8
2

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
5
5

0
0
0
5

0
0
0
5
2

9
2
1
5
5

0
0
0
5
1

%
0

%
5
0
1

6
2
7
3
7

%
0
1
1

1
5
8
5
7

0
0
0
5
3

0
0
0
0
7

9
5
9
8
6

%
5
1
1

3
5
2
5
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
l
a
t
I

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

%
8
5
7
4

7
4
8
2
1

0
7
2

%
8
8

0
0
5
1
4

5
0
4
7
4

%
8
9

0
0
5
3
5
1

9
6
0
7
5
1

%
0
9

8
7
7
0
0
5

9
0
3
6
5
5

L
A
T
O
T

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
5
7

4

d
n
a

l

o
P

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
1

a
t
l

a
M

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

8
1

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

2
0
3

8
1

e
c
n
a
r
F

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
4
m
u

i

g

l

e
B
(

k
l
i

m

r
e
d
w
o
p

d
e
m
m
k
S

i

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

1

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

0
7
2

a

i

n
e
v
o

l

S

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

1

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
6

a
t
l

a
M

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

5

y
l

a
t
I
(

f
e
e
B

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

5
3
1

a

i

n
e
v
o

l

S

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

1

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

:

d
e
t
a
c
o

l
l

a

t
o
n

d
n
a

d
e
r
a

l
c
e
d

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

r
e
h
t

O

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

4

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P
(

l
i

o

e
v

i
l

O

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42

%
9
2
1

%
0
0
1

%
4
1
1

%
2
9

%
0
0
1

%
7
7

%
7
5

%
4
4

%
0

3
4
4
6

8
3
3
3

7
4
8
6

0
0
9

0
6
7
2

2
2
5
1
1

5
3
4
1

6
8
9
1
1

3
5
6

0
0
0
5

8
3
3
3

0
0
0
6

0
0
9

0
0
0
3

0
0
0
5
1

0
0
5
2

t
o
n

d
e
n
fi 
e
d

0
0
5

0
0
5
1

%
0

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
2

0
5

0
0
0
2

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0
0
1

0
8

6
2

2

0
8

A N N E X   I V

)
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
i
(

)
7
0
0
2
/
7
3
9
o
N

)
C
E
(
n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R
n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
g
n
d
n
e
m
a
g
n
d
u
l
c
n
i
(
7
0
0
2
n
a
l
P

i

i

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

r
a
g
u
S

r
e
t
t
u
B

e
c
i
R

s
l
a
e
r
e
C

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

5
1
1
1

%
0

0
0
8
2

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
1

0
0
0
2
1

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

%
0
8

%
6
5

%
4
1

0
0
0
2
1

0
0
5
6

0
7
5
3

0
0
0
5
1

0
0
7
1
1

0
0
0
5
2

%
8
1

%
3
6

0
0
4
2

0
6
1
3

0
0
0
3
1

0
0
0
5

%
0

%
9

%
0

5
5
7
2

%
6
4

1
4
6
3
2

%
3
3
1

0
0
0
0
2

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0
8

0
0
0
4
1

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
5
7
1

%
0

2

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
3

0
7
2

0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
7
1

0
4
9
1
5

0
0
0
5
1

0
6
7
1
1

%
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

%
5
2
1

1
4
6
2
8

0
3
3
6
6

%
2
2
1

5
6
4
2
2
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
5

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
1

%
5

3
7
1

%
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
5

%
2
6

0
5
5
1

0
8
2
3

0
0
0
2
1

0
0
0
2
5

0
0
5
2

%
0
2
1

3
3
4
0
2
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

%
1
9

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2
2

%
0
4

%
9
8

2
1
7
6
9

0
1
6
3

1
5
6
4
1

t
o
n

d
e
n
fi 
e
d

0
0
0
9

0
0
5
6
1

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
l
a
t
I

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

2
2
4

%
0

0
0
0
3

%
0
2
1

4
8
8
7
4

8
8
7
9
3

%
0
4

2
3
1
8
2

3
2
9
0
7

%
7
3

6
9
3
0
6

2
4
2
3
6
1

%
3
3
1

5
9
9
2
6
6

0
8
8
8
9
4

L
A
T
O
T

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

2

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
1

a
t
l

a
M

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
8

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

4
1
5

3

e
c
e
e
r
G

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
1

.

p
e
R

h
c
e
z
C

(

k
l
i

m

r
e
d
w
o
p

d
e
m
m
k
S

i

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

1

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

1

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
6

a
t
l

a
M

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

5

y
l

a
t
I
(

f
e
e
B

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
8

a

i

n
e
v
o

l

S

:

d
e
t
a
c
o

l
l

a

t
o
n

d
n
a

d
e
r
a

l
c
e
d

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

r
e
h
t

O

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43

%
8
3
1

%
8
9

%
0
0
1

7
6

4
5
1
4

5
8
3
6

%
0
0
1

%
9
8

%
0
0
1

%
8
5

%
0
9

%
2
2

%
6
8

%
7
5

%
9
7

%
0
9

0
0
5
6

8
1
7
3

0
0
0
7

9
8
8
2

0
2
6
1

7
9
3

2
5
5
5
1

7
0
7
1

8
9
8
5
1

6
0
8

7
6

0
0
0
3

0
0
5
6

0
0
5
6

3
9
1
4

0
0
0
7

0
0
0
5

0
0
8
1

0
0
8
1

0
3
1
8
1

0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
9

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

4
2

0
0
0
3
1

6
6
9
3
1

0
0
0
5
2

0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
5

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2
1

0
0
0
2
1

0
8
2
9
3

0
0
0
7

0
0
5

0
0
8

0
0
5
7
1

%
6
8

3
9
6
6
6

0
9
8
7
7

%
0

0

0
9
9
7
6

%
0

0

0
8
0
1
9

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

%
0

0
0
0
6
1

0
0
0
0
2

0
6
3

0
0
8
1

)
a
(

0
0
0
5
2

0
0
0
0
1
1

4
4
0
7
9

0
0
0
0
2
1

0
4
4
1

0
0
0
5
2

0
0
0
0
6

0
0
5
2

0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2
2

0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2

0
0
0
6
1

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
l
a
t
I

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

4
4

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
7

a

i

n
a
u
h
t
i

L

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

5
3
4

3

e
c
e
e
r
G

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

3
1

.

p
e
R

h
c
e
z
C

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

3
0
6

1
m
u

i

g

l

e
B
(

k
l
i

m

r
e
d
w
o
p

d
e
m
m
k
S

i

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
5

a

i

n
e
v
o

l

S

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

2

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
2

a
t
l

a
M

,
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
0
0

1

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

0
6

a
t
l

a
M
d
n
a

s
e
n
n
o
t

4
6
6
m
u

i

g

l

e
B
(

f
e
e
B

:

d
e
t
a
c
o

l
l

a

t
o
n

d
n
a

d
e
r
a

l
c
e
d

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

r
e
h
t

O

.
)
s
e
n
n
o
t

5
8
2

2

e
c
e
e
r
G

(

l
i

o

e
v

i
l

O

0

4
4
1
9
1
9

L
A
T
O
T

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

)
a
(

)
a
(
/
)
b

(

)

b

(

A N N E X   I V

)
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
i
(

)
8
0
0
2
/
2
8
1
o
N

)
C
E
(
n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R
n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
g
n
d
n
e
m
a
g
n
d
u
l
c
n
i
(
8
0
0
2
n
a
l
P

i

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

s
d
e
e
N

r
a
g
u
S

r
e
t
t
u
B

e
c
i
R

s
l
a
e
r
e
C

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44

REPLY OF THE 
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II.
S i n c e   t h e   b e g i n n i n g ,   t h e   M o s t   D e p r i v e d 
programme  was  fully  embedded  within  the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The two 
objectives  of  the  programme,  as  the  Court 
recalls, were already at that time to contrib-
u t e   t o   f o o d   s e c u r i t y   o f   t h e   m o s t   d e p r i v e d 
a m o n g   t h e   c i t i z e n s   o f   t h e   U n i o n ,   a n d   t o 
ensure an alternative outlet for the interven-
tion stocks. Both aims find their justification 
in the Treaty and are in line with the objec-
tives of the CAP enumerated in Article 33.

O v e r   t h e   y e a r s   t h e   f o o d   d i s t r i b u t i o n   p l a n s 
i m p l e m e n t e d   u n d e r   t h e   s c h e m e   h a v e   s u c -
c e s s f u l l y   c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   a c h i e v e   b o t h 
objectives.

III.
T h e   s t a t e   o f   E U   p u b l i c   s t o c k s   v a r i e s   w i t h 
market developments and price levels. While 
intervention has been extensively reformed, 
it  remains  operational  for  a  whole  range  of 
m a i n   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t s   i n c l u d i n g   c e r -
eals,  skimmed  milk  powder  and  butter.  The 
decline  in  intervention  stocks  over  the  last 
few years has stopped in 2008. Indeed, inter-
vention  stocks  for  certain  products  such  as 
cereals and butter are currently buildingup 
again.

V.
For the last four years, as intervention stocks 
h a v e   d e c r e a s e d ,   t h e   a n n u a l   p l a n s   i m p l e -
m e n t i n g   t h i s   p r o g r a m m e   h a d   t o   r e l y   t o   a 
larger extent on market purchases. However, 
this trend of the last years has been stopped 
recently and intervention stocks for certain 
products are increasing again.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

45

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l r e a d y   m o d i f i e d   t h e 
m e t h o d o l o g y   t o   c a l c u l a t e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’ 
allocations  in  the  2009  annual  plan  to  take 
i n t o   a c c o u n t   t h e   r e l a t i v e   l e v e l   o f   w e a l t h 
(Gross National Income expressed in Power 
P u r c h a s i n g   S t a n d a r d   p e r   c a p i t a ) ,   w i t h   t h e 
unanimous support of participating Member 
States.

As  regards  the  tendering  procedures,  Com-
mission  audits  conclude  to  the  compliance 
o f   t h e   p r o c e d u r e s   a p p l i e d   b y   t h e   M e m b e r 
States with the EU Public Procurement Direc-
tive 3. The Impact Assessment accompanying 
t h e   2 0 0 8   r e f o r m   p r o p o s a l 4  c o n t a i n s   n e v e r -
theless some suggestions to further enhance 
t h e   p u b l i c i t y   o f   t e n d e r s   a n d   t h e n   i n c r e a s e 
participation which would be implemented 
once the proposal is adopted.

The Commission is ready to re-examine cur-
rent bartering arrangements in the context 
of the new implementing rules following the 
adoption of the new Council Regulation cur-
rently under discussion.

A large majority of Member States supports 
the measure, as well as the European Parlia-
ment which has expressed its wish that the 
p r o g r a m m e   r e m a i n s   f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E A G F 
budget 1.

VI.
The operational effectiveness of the scheme 
is not to be judged on the number of meals 
offered per beneficiary but on the extent to 
w h i c h   i t   p r o v i d e s   a   s t a b l e   o u t l e t   f o r   p r o d -
u c t s   f r o m   i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   a n d   r e l i a b l e 
s o u r c e   o f   f o o d s t u f f s   f o r   c h a r i t i e s   i n v o l v e d 
in  the  assistance  to  most  deprived  people. 
Against this background, the programme has 
proven  successful  as  shown  by  its  share  in 
total food aid being distributed (please see 
B o x   5   o f   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   r e p o r t ) .   A l l   t h e   s t a k e -
h o l d e r s   r e c o g n i s e   t h a t   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e 
scheme is substantial.

Furthermore, the measure has had a powerful 
leverage effect in allowing the development 
of networks of charities and facilitating the 
coordination with public authorities.

VII.
The Commission considers that globally the 
s y s t e m   i s   s a t i s f a c t o r i l y   m a n a g e d   a l t h o u g h 
some further improvements are possible. The 
Commission has tabled a proposal to reform 
the programme in 2008 which addresses sev-
eral suggestions of the Court 2.

1  European Parliament legislative resolution of 

3  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and 

26 March 2009 (TA/2009/188) on the proposal for 

of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination 

a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 

of procedures for the award of public works contracts, 

1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural 

public supply contracts and public service contracts 

policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 

(OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114).

a common organisation of agricultural markets and 

on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 

4  Commission Staff Working Document accompanying 

(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 

the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending 

to the most deprived persons in the Community 

Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the 

(COM(2008)0563 — C6-0353/2008 — 2008/0183(CNS)).

common agricultural policy and (EC) No 1234/2007 

2  Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 

and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 

(EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common 

(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 

agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 

to the most deprived persons in the Community — 

establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets 

Impact Assessment SEC(2008) 2436/2.

establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets 

and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 

(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 

to the most deprived persons in the Community 

(COM(2008) 563 final).

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

46

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

In  addition,  the  programme  has  a  leverage 
effect on the development of actions by pri-
v a t e   b o d i e s   ( c h a r i t i e s )   a n d   p u b l i c   a u t h o r i -
t i e s   ( a t   n a t i o n a l   a n d   l o c a l   l e v e l ) ,   a s   s h o w n 
in the Impact Assessment accompanying the 
2 0 0 8   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   t o   r e f o r m   t h e 
programme.

The Commission considers that a more rele-
v a n t   i n d i c a t o r   i s   t h e   a m o u n t   i n   e u r o s   p e r 
real aid recipient, calculated on the basis of 
information contained in national reports on 
implementation.

9.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h e   i n c r e a s i n g 
n u m b e r   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’   p a r t i c i p a t i n g 
i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   a s   a   p r o o f   o f   i t s   a d d e d 
value.

11.
Providing  an  outlet  for  intervention  stocks 
is a major objective of the scheme.

N o w a d a y s ,   m o s t   o f   t h e   i n t e r v e n t i o n   p r o d -
u c t s   a r e   e x c h a n g e d   a g a i n s t   f o o d   a n d   l e s s 
a n d   l e s s   p r o c e s s e d   f o r   d i s t r i b u t i o n   t o   t h e 
m o s t   d e p r i v e d .   C a l l   f o r   t e n d e r   p r o c e d u r e s 
a r e   n o t   i n f l u e n c e d   b y   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   i n t e r -
v e n t i o n   p r o d u c t s   a r e   e i t h e r   p r o c e s s e d   o r 
exchanged,  but  this  factor  affects  the  bur-
den of control.

T h e   t r e n d   t o w a r d s   e x t e n s i v e l y   p r o c e s s e d 
f o o d s   i s   t h e   r e s u l t   o f   N G O   d e m a n d s   t o   b e 
supplied with foodstuffs better suited to the 
living conditions of deprived people and in 
order to distribute a wider range of products 
securing a more balanced diet.

INTRODUCTION

5.
Total numbers of people ‘at risk of poverty’ 
d o   n o t   c o n s t i t u t e   t h e   t a r g e t   g r o u p   o f   t h i s 
measure. According to Article 2(1) of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3149/92, the category of popu-
l a t i o n   ‘ a t   r i s k   o f   p o v e r t y ’   i s   t h e   s t a t i s t i c a l 
indicator used in the calculation of the Mem-
ber States’ allocations since it is considered 
the best available estimate of the number of 
most deprived persons. The notion of popu-
lation ‘at risk of poverty’ is based on criteria 
a g r e e d   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 1   a t   t h e   E u r o p e a n 
Council meeting in Laeken.

F o r   t h e   2 0 0 9   a n n u a l   p l a n ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
has  already  used  a  new  method  combining 
relative (GNI — Gross National Income — per 
capita  expressed  in  Purchase  Power  Stand-
a r d s )   a n d   a b s o l u t e   ( p o p u l a t i o n   a t   r i s k   o f 
poverty) indicators.

T h e   p o p u l a t i o n   a c t u a l l y   t a r g e t e d   b y   t h i s 
scheme is defined by Member States’ admin-
istrations in close cooperation with charities, 
and corresponds to individuals and families 
in need of food assistance.

7.
O n e   o f   t h e   a i m s   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   i s   t o 
secure  a  reliable  and  stable  source  of  food 
for the charities engaged in providing food 
assistance  to  the  most  deprived  persons  of 
the Community. In this respect, Box 5 of the 
Court’s report provides clear evidence of the 
programme’s significant impact since it pro-
vides between 30 and 70 % of the total food 
distributed  in  the  EU  to  the  most  deprived 
people.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

12.
The situation of public stocks changes every 
y e a r   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   m a r k e t   c o n d i t i o n s ,   i n 
p a r t i c u l a r   p r i c e   l e v e l s .   W h i l e   i n t e r v e n t i o n 
has been extensively reformed over the last 
few years, it remains operational for a whole 
range of main agricultural products includ-
ing  cereals,  skimmed  milk  powder  and  but-
t e r ,   a n d   s t o c k s   c a n   r a p i d l y   b u i l d   u p   a g a i n 
in a situation of low producer prices. In this 
sense,  it  is  very  likely  that  the  2010  annual 
plan relies more extensively on intervention 
stocks than the two previous years.

17.
T h e   E U   p r o g r a m m e   t e n d s   t o   a c c o u n t   f o r   a 
very substantial share of total food distrib-
u t e d   b y   e v e r y   o r g a n i s a t i o n   a l t h o u g h   t h e 
situation  varies  greatly  across  charities.  An 
a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   i m p o r t a n c e   o f   t h e   s c h e m e 
a n d   o f   i t s   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o w a r d s   t h e   w e l l -
being of the most deprived can be found in 
t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m p a n y i n g   t h e 
proposal for a new Council Regulation.

47

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

OBSERVATIONS

25.
W h i l e   i t   i s   t r u e   t h a t   i n t e r v e n t i o n   m e c h a n –
isms have been reformed recently, interven-
t i o n   r e m a i n s   i n   p l a c e   f o r   a   w h o l e   r a n g e   o f 
major agricultural products such as cereals, 
skimmed milk powder and butter. Interven-
tion stocks may buildup again in future, in a 
situation of low producer prices, leading to a 
more important share of intervention goods 
i n   s o u r c i n g   t h e   s c h e m e .   I n   f a c t ,   i n t e r v e n -
tion stocks for certain products are currently 
increasing again.

26.
T h e   f o o d   a i d   t o   d e p r i v e d   p e r s o n s   m e a s u r e 
keeps  a  strong  link  with  the  CAP  as  long  as 
it contributes to fulfil the objectives of this 
p o l i c y   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   i n   t h e   a r e a   o f   m a r k e t 
stabilisation.

The Commission proposal for a new Council 
Regulation seeks to remove the confinement 
of distributed products to those eligible for 
intervention.

27.
The Commission does not wish to pre-empt 
the outcome of the political discussions that 
are currently taking place following the sub-
m i s s i o n   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a 
new Council Regulation.

The Commission would like to underline that 
an overwhelming majority of Member States 
consistently  vote  in  favour  of  the  approval 
of the annual plans.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

48

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

34.
The notions of ‘potential beneficiaries’ and 
‘target  population’  are  different:  while  the 
former  is  a  statistical  indicator  used  exclu-
sively for the calculation of Member States’ 
allocations, the population actually targeted 
is  defined  at  the  appropriate  geographical 
level  by  Member  States’  managing  authori-
t i e s   i n   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   c h a r i t i e s   ( A r t i -
cle 1(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92).

For the 2009 budget allocation of the plan, a 
new methodology has been used combining 
the number of people ‘at risk of poverty’ to 
the GNI per purchasing power parity for each 
Member  State.  This  further  proves  that  the 
number of people at risk of poverty is not a 
number of potential beneficiaries.

35–36.
The food aid measure does not claim to solve 
by  itself  the  question  of  food  insecurity  in 
t h e   E U .   I t   i s   a   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   t h e   s o l u t i o n 
o f   a   p r o b l e m   t h a t   r e q u i r e s   n o t   o n l y   t h e 
involvement of the Community but also the 
mobilisation  of  Member  States’  authorities 
at various levels and of the civil society.

In  this  context,  one  of  the  aims  of  the  pro-
g r a m m e   i s   t o   s e c u r e   a   r e l i a b l e   a n d   s t a b l e 
s o u r c e   o f   f o o d s t u f f s   f o r   t h e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s 
p r o v i d i n g   f o o d   a s s i s t a n c e   t o   t h e   m o s t 
deprived persons.

28.
S i n c e   i t s   i n c e p t i o n ,   t h e   s c h e m e   h a s   h a d   a 
two-fold complementary dimension: market 
stabilisation and social. The cost-efficiency 
of the scheme is to be assessed against the 
concurrent fulfilment of both objectives.

T h e   1 9 9 8   e v a l u a t i o n   s t u d y   m e n t i o n e d   b y 
t h e   C o u r t   w a s   e l a b o r a t e d   b y   a n   i n d e p e n d -
e n t   c o n s u l t a n t .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ’ s   q u a l -
i t y   c h e c k   o f   t h i s   r e p o r t   i n c l u d e s   c r i t i c a l 
remarks related mainly to its methodology, 
the robustness of the analysis and the cred-
ibility of the results.

The various quotes highlighted by the Court 
bring  forward  the  social  component  of  the 
s c h e m e ,   w i t h o u t   n e v e r t h e l e s s   c a l l i n g   i n t o 
question its agricultural dimension.

29.
Even if the social dimension of this scheme 
i s   d u l y   r e c o g n i s e d ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d 
l i k e   t o   u n d e r l i n e   t h a t   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o 
1234/2007  is  a  key  Regulation  of  the  Com-
mon Agricultural Policy, based on Articles 36 
and  37  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  Euro-
pean Community.

33.
I t   e m e r g e s   f r o m   t h e   r e g u l a r   m e e t i n g s   t h a t 
the  Commission  holds  with  Member  States’ 
authorities and charities as part of its man-
agement of the scheme, that there is gener-
ally a high level of satisfaction on both sides 
with the way consultations are conducted at 
national level.

The Commission agrees however that there 
is  room  for  improvement  and  has  included 
i n   t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m p a n y i n g 
t h e   2 0 0 8   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w 
Council Regulation suggestions to enhance 
t h e   l i n k   b e t w e e n   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   o t h e r 
actions  at  Member  State  level,  through  for 
e x a m p l e   t h e   d r a w i n g - u p   o f   n a t i o n a l   f o o d 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   p r o g r a m m e s .   T h e s e   w o u l d   b e 
implemented after the adoption of the new 
Council Regulation.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

49

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

38–40.
One  of  the  specific  features  of  this  scheme 
i s   t h e   e s s e n t i a l   r o l e   p l a y e d   b y   N G O s   a n d 
c h a r i t i e s   t h r o u g h   t h e i r   d i s t r i b u t i o n   c h a i n s 
a n d   k n o w l e d g e   o f   t h e   p r o b l e m s   a f f e c t i n g 
the  most  deprived  population  of  the  Com-
munity. By virtue of the principle of subsidi-
arity,  it  is  up  to  Member  States’  authorities 
t o   d e t e r m i n e   t h e   a p p r o p r i a t e   p r o c e d u r e s 
and  criteria  to  designate  the  organisations 
taking part in the implementation of annual 
plans.

I n   t h e   s a m e   l i n e ,   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   o f   f o o d   a i d 
r e c i p i e n t s   f a l l s   u n d e r   t h e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f 
Member States by virtue of the principle of 
subsidiarity.

The Commission proposal for a new Council 
Regulation  includes  a  more  comprehensive 
r e p o r t i n g   s y s t e m   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   t h e 
Commission, the details of which would have 
t o   b e   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   c o r r e s p o n d i n g   n e w 
implementing rules.

41.
Differences in the frequency of the reception 
of the aid are not a proof of a poor impact of 
the scheme. The food needs of most deprived 
i n d i v i d u a l s   v a r y   g r e a t l y   f r o m   c a s e   t o   c a s e 
and  over  time.  In  order  to  be  effective,  the 
s c h e m e   r e q u i r e s   a   c o n s i d e r a b l e   d e g r e e   o f 
f l e x i b i l i t y   s o   t h a t   i t   c a n   b e   a d j u s t e d   t o   a 
broad range of circumstances.

T h e r e f o r e ,   t h e   e s t i m a t e s   o f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f 
m e a l s   p r o v i d e d   t o   t h e   a i d   r e c i p i e n t s   a r e 
n o t   t h e   b e s t   i n d i c a t o r   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e ’ s 
impact,  even  if  the  distribution  of  approxi-
m a t e l y   1 5 6   m i l l i o n   m e a l s   p e r   y e a r   i s   t o   b e 
considered very significant.

The added value of this measure in improving 
the living conditions of the most deprived is 
better evidenced by the estimates included 
in  box  5  of  the  Court’s  report,  according  to 
which  the  EU  scheme  provides  between  30 
and 70 % of the total food distributed in the 
C o m m u n i t y   t o   t h e   m o s t   d e p r i v e d   p e o p l e , 
d e p e n d i n g   o n   t h e   c h a r i t i e s   a n d   t h e   M e m -
ber States. This does represent a ‘significant 
c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o w a r d s   t h e   w e l l - b e i n g   o f   i t s 
most deprived persons’.

37.
N o w a d a y s   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   a n d   t a r g e t i n g 
are  decided  by  Member  States’  administra-
tions in cooperation with charities, the latter 
having to respect such criteria to be able to 
participate in the scheme.

The public consultation on the future of the 
p r o g r a m m e   t h a t   t o o k   p l a c e   a s   p a r t   o f   t h e 
Impact Assessment accompanying the Com-
mission proposal for a new Council Regula-
tion, has revealed a large consensus for not 
restraining  the  choice  of  the  population  to 
be  helped  to  certain  categories  among  the 
m o s t   d e p r i v e d .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ’ s   o p i n i o n 
i s   t h a t ,   b y   v i r t u e   o f   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n -
ciple, such choice should be left to Member 
States.

Following the Court’s examples in Box 5, the 
EU scheme provides between 30 and 70 % of 
the total food distributed in the Community 
to the most deprived people, depending on 
the charities and the Member States. This is 
not negligible.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

50

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

52.
As  foreseen  in  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 3149/92 with regard to the allocation of 
r e s o u r c e s   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   t h e   C o m m i s -
sion duly considers the reports transmitted 
b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a s   p a r t   o f   t h e   m o n i t o r -
i n g   m e c h a n i s m   a n d   i n   a d d i t i o n   t o   r e g u l a r 
c o n t a c t s   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   i n   p a r t i c u -
l a r   w i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e   o f   t h e   M a n a g e m e n t 
Committee.

M o r e o v e r ,   t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m -
p a n y i n g   t h e   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n c i l 
Regulation presents various findings based 
o n   t h e   s t u d y   o f   t h e   n a t i o n a l   r e p o r t s ,   s u c h 
as  for  example  the  number  of  beneficiaries 
of the aid. This proves that the Commission 
analyses and makes use of these reports.

53.
In application of the subsidiarity principle, it 
falls  on  Member  States  to  fix  the  definition 
of beneficiaries best suited to the particular 
s i t u a t i o n   o f   i t s   m o s t   d e p r i v e d   p o p u l a t i o n . 
Therefore, the Commission is of the view that 
common  standards  or  definition  of  benefi-
ciaries would not bring about any improve-
ment to the efficiency of the programme.

In the Impact Assessment accompanying the 
p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   e x p r e s s e d   i t s   i n t e n t i o n   t o 
reinforce  Member  States’  reporting  obliga-
tions. Details are to be laid down in the new 
implementing rules after the adoption of the 
new Council Regulation.

44–45.
Over the years the Commission has adjusted 
t h e   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i n 
order to soften the criteria on the products 
to be distributed. A comprehensive descrip-
t i o n   o f   t h e s e   a d j u s t m e n t s   c a n   b e   f o u n d   i n 
t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m p a n y i n g   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n c i l 
Regulation.

In the Commission proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation the range of food that may be 
distributed is no longer confined to the fam-
ilies of products eligible for intervention.

47.
The  objective  of  the  measure  is  not  to  pro-
vide an identical level of aid to all aid recipi-
ents as their needs are different too and so 
are the costs of food across Member States. 
T h e   a b s e n c e   o f   u n i f o r m   q u a n t i t i e s   d i s t r i b -
uted per person does not necessarily create 
a   r i s k   o f   p o o r   i m p a c t   n o r   o f   a i d   r e c i p i e n t s 
being treated unequally.

49–50.
The Commission will do its utmost within the 
l i m i t s   d u e   t o   t h e   n a t u r e   a n d   t h e   s p e c i f i c i -
ties of this measure, to secure that the new 
i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s   a f t e r   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f 
the new Council Regulation lay down objec-
tives and indicators according to applicable 
guidelines.

W i t h   t h i s   p u r p o s e ,   a   s e r i e s   o f   m e a s u r a b l e 
objectives and harmonised, measurable indi-
c a t o r s   h a v e   b e e n   p r o p o s e d   i n   t h e   I m p a c t 
Assessment accompanying the Commission 
proposal for a new Council Regulation.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

56.
For  the  2009  plan  the  Commission  has  fol-
lowed  a  new  method  for  the  calculation  of 
national allocations that takes into account 
the differences in purchasing power between 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   D e t a i l s   a b o u t   t h i s   c a l c u l a -
tion are provided in the annex to the Impact 
Assessment accompanying the proposal for 
a new Council Regulation.

57.
The Commission takes account of significant 
under-execution by Member States. The fact 
that  no  adjustment  was  applied  during  the 
period  under  scrutiny  (plans  2006–2008)  is 
due to the high level of execution achieved 
by participant Member States.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s t r e s s e s   t h a t   a n y   c a l c u l a -
tion method has to be based on official sta-
tistics available for all Member States.

58.
T h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   n a t i o n a l   n e e d s   i s   t h e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   f o l l o w i n g 
t h e i r   o w n   p r o c e d u r e s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   c o n -
sulting involved charities. In this sense, the 
Commission has always actively encouraged 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   i n v o l v e   c h a r i t i e s   i n   t h e 
inception of the programme.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n -
cil  Regulation  foresees  that  Member  States 
c o - f i n a n c e   t h e   p r o g r a m m e ,   w h i c h   w i l l   f u r -
ther encourage Member States to secure the 
n e c e s s a r y   m a t c h i n g   b e t w e e n   r e q u e s t s   a n d 
effective needs (see Annex 14 to the Impact 
Assessment accompanying the Commission 
proposal).

51

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

59.
While it is correct that Member States needs 
cannot  always  be  satisfied  at  100 %  mainly 
due to the lack of resources, the Commission 
makes  every  effort  to  meet  Member  States 
requests in the largest possible manner.

Member States communicate to the Commis-
s i o n   t h e   p r o d u c t s   t h e y   w i s h   t o   g e t .   T h e s e 
i n i t i a l   r e q u e s t s   a r e   d i s c u s s e d   b o t h   i n   t h e 
f r a m e w o r k   o f   t h e   M a n a g e m e n t   C o m m i t t e e 
and in bilateral contacts. As a consequence 
t h e   i n i t i a l   r e q u e s t s   a r e   a d j u s t e d .   A s   a n 
e x  a m p l e   r i c e   a n d   b u t t e r   w e r e   r e p l a c e d   b y 
o t h e r   p r o d u c t s .   H o w e v e r ,   f r o m   t h i s   p r o c e -
dure  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  the  Mem-
b e r   S t a t e s   w e r e   a l l o c a t e d   p r o d u c t s   w h i c h 
t h e y   d i d   n o t   w a n t .   F a c t   i s   t h a t   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a c c e p t e d   t h a t   t h e i r   i n i t i a l   r e q u e s t 
could not be met and that, in exchange, they 
have received products which they initially 
d i d   n o t   d e m a n d .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   a l l   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a c c e p t e d   t h e s e   d e c i s i o n s   a n d   w e l -
comed the products they finally received.

63.
E U   a n d   n a t i o n a l   l e g i s l a t i o n   o n   p u b l i c   p r o -
c u r e m e n t   a p p l y   t o   t h e   t e n d e r s   r u n   i n   t h e 
framework of this scheme, without the need 
of this legislation being explicitly mentioned 
in Regulations.

64.
See the Commission reply to paragraph 63.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   p e r f o r m e d   6   a u d i t s 
b e t w e e n   2 0 0 6   a n d   2 0 0 7   w i t h o u t   f i n d i n g 
a n y   m a j o r   s h o r t c o m i n g   i n   t h e   p r o c e d u r e s 
followed  by  Member  States  to  run  the  ten-
ders.  Furthermore,  it  has  found  that  opera-
tors  based  in  a  different  Member  State  are 
granted with supply contracts, which shows 
t h a t   c o m p e t i t i o n   b e t w e e n   o p e r a t o r s   f r o m 
various  Member  States  occurs.  Overall,  the 
way Member States conduct the tenders has 
proven in compliance with the requirements 
laid down in the EU Directive 2004/18/EC.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

52

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

P r o v i s i o n s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   d e l a y s   f o r   s u b -
m i s s i o n   o f   o f f e r s   a r e   l a i d   d o w n   i n   A r t .   3 8 
o f   t h e   D i r e c t i v e   a n d   c a n   v a r y   a c c o r d i n g   t o 
the modalities of implementation chosen in 
Article 36.

The criteria to award contracts are the ones 
described in Article 53: i.e. the most advan-
tageous  offer  in  terms  of  quantity  offered/
t r a n s p o r t   c o s t ,   o r   t h e   l o w e r   o f f e r   i n   t e r m s 
of price.

68.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o o   n o t e d   t h e   s o m e t i m e s 
low number of participants submitting bids 
but  it  found  no  evidence  of  a  link  between 
the low participation and the way the Direc-
tive requirements were implemented.

Given the diversity both in terms of quantity 
and  quality  of  the  products  to  be  supplied, 
it is not possible to compare prices obtained 
under the calls for tender with market prices. 
Consequently,  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
on this basis about the ‘quality’ of the offers 
submitted.

69.
The Commission audits also found that sev-
e r a l   c o m p a n i e s   w e r e   a w a r d e d   c o n t r a c t s 
over  several  years  but  there  is  no  evidence 
of a link between the low participation and 
t h e   w a y   t h e   D i r e c t i v e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   w e r e 
implemented.

70.
T h e   s c h e m e   s i n c e   i t s   b e g i n n i n g   a i m e d   a t 
w i t h d r a w i n g   s t o c k s   f r o m   i n t e r v e n t i o n , 
relieving EU expenses on storage costs. This 
additional economic effect should be taken 
into account.

65.
One  of  the  objectives  of  the  programme  is 
t h e   d i s p o s a l   o f   i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s .   W h e n 
available they constitute the priority source 
of  supply  for  the  programme.  Furthermore, 
the disposal of intervention stocks through 
this scheme enables the Community to save 
the storage costs that otherwise would have 
to be borne by the EU budget.

66.
T e n d e r s   a r e   r u n   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   u n d e r 
t h e i r   a u t h o r i t y .   S e e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e p l y   t o 
paragraph 64.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a i n l y   f o l l o w s   t h e   e v o l u -
tion  of  market  prices  for  unprocessed  agri-
cultural products while the tenders concern 
food ready for consumption. No operational 
c o n c l u s i o n s   c a n   b e   b a s e d   o n   c o m p a r i s o n s 
between both types of prices.

67.
See the Commission reply to paragraph 64.

D i r e c t i v e   2 0 0 4 / 1 8 / E C   g o v e r n i n g   t h e   p r o -
cedures  for  the  award  of  public  works  con-
t r a c t s ,   p u b l i c   s u p p l y   c o n t r a c t s   a n d   p u b l i c 
service  contracts,  is  in  force  in  all  Member 
States.  Even  when,  within  a  Member  State, 
provisions regulating tendering procedures 
d i f f e r ,   t h e y   r e m a i n   i n   c o n f o r m i t y   w i t h   t h e 
Directive.

Chapter  VI  of  the  Directive  contains  provi-
sions on publicity of the calls. Calls for ten-
der are required to be published in national 
O f f i c i a l   J o u r n a l s ,   a s   w e l l   a s   i n   t h e   O f f i c i a l 
Journal of the European Union. In some Mem-
ber States visited by the Court, calls for ten-
der are also publicised via Internet.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

53

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

(a)
Given the basic link of this programme with 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s ,   b a r t e r i n g   w a s   u n t i l 
recently the core of the scheme.

75.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   v i e w   t h a t   p a r -
ticipation  of  Member  States  should  remain 
voluntary.

(b)
Almost all Member States have in place com-
m i t t e e s   t o   e s t a b l i s h   b a r t e r i n g   r e f e r e n c e s , 
i n c l u d i n g   t h o s e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   v i s i t e d   b y 
the Court.

74.
W h i l e   a p p r e c i a t i n g   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   p o s i t i v e 
a s s e s s m e n t   o f   v a r i o u s   e l e m e n t s   o f   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n c i l 
Regulation,  the  Commission  does  not  wish 
t o   p r e - e m p t   t h e   o u t c o m e   o f   t h e   p o l i t i c a l 
d i s c u s s i o n s   c u r r e n t l y   t a k i n g   p l a c e   o n   t h i s 
basis.

Further, the Commission would like to stress 
t h a t   t h e   E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t ’ s   o p i n i o n 5 
does not call into question the opportunity 
to continue to finance this measure through 
CAP expenditure.

A s   m e n t i o n e d   i n   p a r a g r a p h   2 5   a b o v e , 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   s t o c k s   f o r   c e r t a i n   p r o d -
u c t s   a r e   i n c r e a s i n g   u n d e r   c u r r e n t   m a r k e t 
conditions.

S e t t i n g   o b l i g a t i o n s   o n   t h e   o r i g i n   o f   t h e 
p r o d u c t   w o u l d   n o t   o n l y   p o s e   m a j o r   c o n -
t r o l   d i f f i c u l t i e s   b u t   w o u l d   i m p o s e   a   h u g e 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   f o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’ 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   w i t h o u t   a n y   i m p r o v e m e n t 
o f   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f   t h e   s c h e m e ,   r a t h e r   t h e 
contrary.

CONCLUSIONS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

76.
The measure has two complementary objec-
tives: market stabilisation and contributing 
to the well-being of the most deprived.

T h e   e v a l u a t i o n   r e p o r t   t o   w h i c h   t h e   C o u r t 
refers  was  elaborated  by  independent  con-
sultants and its conclusions should be read 
taking into consideration the Commission’s 
critical remarks on the quality of the study, 
in particular with regard to its methodology, 
the robustness of the analysis and the cred-
ibility of the results.

77.
The  European  Parliament  has  just  released 
its opinion 6 supporting with certain amend-
ments the proposal of the Commission for a 
new Council Regulation adapting the meas-
ure to new prevailing conditions.

Decisions to continue implementing the pro-
g r a m m e   h a v e   b e e n   t a k e n   o n   t h e   m e r i t s   o f 
t h e   m e a s u r e   o n   b o t h   i t s   s o c i a l   a n d   m a r k e t 
stabilisation dimensions.

5  European Parliament legislative resolution of 

6  See footnote 5.

26 March 2009 (TA/2009/188) on the proposal for 

a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 

1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural 

policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing 

a common organisation of agricultural markets and 

on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 

(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 

to the most deprived persons in the Community 

(COM(2008)0563 — C6-0353/2008 — 2008/0183(CNS)).

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

54

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

80.
One of the aims of this measure is to provide 
charities with a stable and reliable source of 
f o o d s t u f f s   f o r   a s s i s t i n g   t h e   m o s t   d e p r i v e d 
persons. In this sense, the impact of the pro-
gramme  cannot  be  merely  assessed  on  the 
average number of meals that it provides but 
o n   t h e   e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h   i t   d o e s   c o n t r i b u t e 
t o   t h e   s u p p l y   o f   c h a r i t a b l e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s . 
This aim is largely attained as far as the pro-
g r a m m e   p r o v i d e s   b e t w e e n   3 0   a n d   7 0  %   o f 
the total food distributed in the Community 
to the most deprived people, depending on 
the charities and the Member States.

81.
By virtue of the subsidiarity principle, Mem-
ber States define the criteria of the popula-
tion having access to the food aid distributed 
by this measure.

Recommendation 3
The Commission already analysed this issue 
in the framework of the Impact Assessment 
accompanying the proposal for a new Coun-
cil Regulation. It concluded that the respect 
of the subsidiarity principle goes along with 
a higher efficiency of the scheme when the 
t a r g e t i n g   o f   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   r e m a i n s   t h e 
Member State’s competence. This position is 
supported  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of 
stakeholders and coincides with the result of 
a public Internet consultation that received 
more that 14 000 replies.

The Commission’s proposal for a new Coun-
c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   i n c o r p o r a t e s   t h e   o b l i g a t i o n 
for Member States to prepare national food 
distribution programmes that would include 
c o m p r e h e n s i v e   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   r e c i p i e n t s 
and charities taking part in the programme. 
Details will be laid down in the implement-
ing rules after the adoption of the Commis-
sion proposal.

78.
A l t h o u g h   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a p p r e c i a t e s   t h e 
C o u r t ’ s   p o s i t i v e   a s s e s s m e n t   a b o u t   i t s   p r o -
posal  for  a  new  Council  Regulation,  it  does 
not wish to pre-empt the ongoing debate at 
Council  level  on  the  appropriate  financing 
of this measure for the future.

The abovementioned EP opinion reflects the 
support  of  this  institution  for  the  measure 
to continue to be funded from the Common 
Agricultural Policy.

Recommendation 1
A f t e r   h a v i n g   a n a l y s e d   i n   a n   e x t e n s i v e   w a y 
t h e   t e c h n i c a l ,   p o l i t i c a l   a n d   l e g a l   e l e m e n t s 
o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   ( s e e   t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s -
ment  supporting  the  Commission  proposal 
for a new Council Regulation), the Commis-
s i o n   h a s   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   C A P   w a s   t h e 
a p p r o p r i a t e   f r a m e   f o r   t h e   c o n t i n u a t i o n   o f 
the scheme.

79.
The Commission is of the view that the pro-
g r a m m e   i s   b e i n g   i m p l e m e n t e d   b y   M e m b e r 
States with a satisfactory level of coordina-
tion and consultation with all relevant actors 
although  further  progress  in  this  domain  is 
always to be pursued.

Recommendation 2
For years, the programme has had a power-
f u l   l e v e r a g e   e f f e c t   o n   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f 
food  initiatives  or  related  measures  by  pri-
vate bodies (charities) and public authorities 
(Member State and local levels).

S u c h   r o l e   c a n   b e   f u r t h e r   p r o m o t e d .   W h i l e 
taking due account of the subsidiarity prin-
c i p l e ,   s e v e r a l   o p t i o n s   t o   e n h a n c e   t h e   l i n k 
b e t w e e n   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   o t h e r   s i m i l a r 
actions were analysed in the context of the 
Impact  Assessment  and  some  of  them  were 
included  in  the  Commission  proposal  for  a 
new Council Regulation.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

55

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Recommendation 5
I n t r o d u c i n g   s t a n d a r d s   a t   C o m m u n i t y   l e v e l 
c o u l d   h i n d e r   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   f l e x i b i l i t y   t h e 
programme must preserve in order to adapt 
t o   t h e   v a r i e d   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   o f   t h e   m o s t 
deprived.

The Commission considers that the way the 
p r o g r a m m e   i s   c u r r e n t l y   r u n ,   w i t h   a   l a r g e 
element  of  subsidiarity  built  in  it,  attains  a 
significant impact and allows an equal treat-
ment to all the aid recipients.

84.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   a l s o   b a s e d   o n   i t s   a u d i t s , 
can  claim  that  Member  States  implementa-
t i o n   i s   g l o b a l l y   s a t i s f a c t o r y   e v e n   i f   c e r t a i n 
areas may improve further.

T h e   m e t h o d   f o r   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   f i n a n c i a l 
r e s o u r c e s   i s   t r a n s p a r e n t   a n d   b a s e d   o n   t h e 
b e s t   s t a t i s t i c a l   i n f o r m a t i o n   a v a i l a b l e .   Y e a r 
a f t e r   y e a r ,   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
endorse this method when voting in favour 
o f   t h e   a n n u a l   p l a n s   i n   t h e   M a n a g e m e n t 
Committee.

Recommendation 6
I n   t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m p a n y i n g 
the  proposal  for  a  new  Council  Regulation, 
a  series  of  measurable  objectives  has  been 
p r o p o s e d .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   c o n s i d e r 
i n t r o d u c i n g   c o r r e s p o n d i n g   p e r f o r m a n c e 
indicators  in  the  framework  of  the  revision 
of the implementing rules after the adoption 
of the new Council Regulation.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   e q u a l l y   e x p r e s s e d   i t s 
intention to reinforce Member States’ report-
i n g   o b l i g a t i o n s   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t h r o u g h   t h e 
new national food distribution programmes, 
in order to ensure a better follow-up of the 
scheme and improve its planning and man-
agement over time.

82.
Over the years the Commission has adjusted 
t h e   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i n 
order to soften the criteria on the products 
to be distributed. A comprehensive descrip-
t i o n   o f   t h e s e   a d j u s t m e n t s   c a n   b e   f o u n d   i n 
t h e   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t   a c c o m p a n y i n g   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n c i l 
Regulation.

Recommendation 4
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   n e w   C o u n -
cil  Regulation 7  includes  the  removal  of  this 
restriction.

83.
B y   i t s   v e r y   n a t u r e ,   s u c h   a   s c h e m e   h a s   t o 
adapt to very different situations in the vari-
o u s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   F o r   t h i s 
reason, the variety of systems is an essential 
prerequisite of the proper functioning of the 
measure.

The needs of food aid vary hugely between 
i n d i v i d u a l   a i d   r e c i p i e n t s   a n d   o v e r   t i m e . 
The  differences  in  the  quantity  of  food  dis-
t r i b u t e d   t o   e v e r y   i n d i v i d u a l   a i d   r e c i p i e n t 
can  therefore  not  be  presented  as  unequal 
treatment.

The setting of common standards would not 
necessarily result in improving the impact of 
the  measure  that,  as  proven  in  Box  5  of  the 
Court’s report, is very substantial in the light 
o f   t h e   s h a r e   o f   f o o d   d i s t r i b u t e d   b y   N G O s 
sourced from the EU programme.

7  Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 

(EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common 

agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 

establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets 

and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 

(Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution 

to the most deprived persons in the Community 

(COM(2008) 563 final).

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

56

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

85.
D i r e c t i v e   2 0 0 4 / 1 8 / E C   o n   t h e   c o o r d i n a t i o n 
of procedures for the award of public works 
contracts, public supply contracts and pub-
l i c   s e r v i c e   c o n t r a c t s ,   p r o v i d e s   a   c o m m o n 
l e g a l   b a s i s   t h r o u g h o u t   t h e   E U .   T h e   a u d i t s 
carried  out  by  the  Commission  conclude  to 
the compliance of the call for tenders run by 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w i t h   t h e   D i r e c t i v e .   D i f -
ferences in modalities found in the Member 
States  are  foreseen  in  the  Directive.  Some-
times operators take part in tenders organ-
ised in other Member States.

Recommendation 7
The Commission already analysed the ques-
t i o n   o f   t h e   t e n d e r i n g   p r o c e d u r e s   i n   t h e 
Impact Assessment accompanying the Com-
mission proposal for a new Council Regula-
tion including some ideas for enhancing the 
E U - w i d e   p u b l i c i t y   o f   t h e   t e n d e r s .   D e t a i l e d 
r u l e s   m a y   b e   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   n e w   i m p l e -
m e n t i n g   r u l e s   a f t e r   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   a   n e w 
Council Regulation.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   e x a m i n e   t h e   p r o p o -
s i t i o n   o f   t h e   C o u r t   a s   r e g a r d s   t h e   a d a p t a -
tion of the bartering arrangements without 
 n e v e r t h e l e s s   p r e v e n t i n g   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   t o 
mobilise intervention stocks as this practice 
is at the core of the scheme.

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

57

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

59

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

European Court of Auditors

Special Report No 6/2009

European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2009 — 56 pp. — 21 (cid:2) 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9207-340-4

doi: 10.2865/2420

Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed

How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

• 

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

 by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.

Q
J
-
A
B
-
0
9
-
0
0
7
-
E
N

-
C

I N   T H I S   R E P O R T   T H E   CO U R T   M A K E S   A N   A S S E S S M E N T   O F   T H E 

MANAGEMENT, THE RESOURCES AND THE IMPACT OF THE EU FOOD 

PROGRAMME FOR THE MOST DEPRIVED CITIZENS. THE MEASURE WAS 

FIRST INTRODUCED IN 1987, BY USING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN 

PUBLIC INTERVENTION STOCKS, AND IS STILL APPLIED IN CERTAIN 

MEMBER STATES. 

T H E   R E P O R T   D E M O N S T R AT E S   T H AT   T H E   O B J E C T I V E S   O F   T H E 

PROGRAMME, ESPECIALLY THAT FOR THE ‘CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS 

THE WELL-BEING’ OF THE MOST NEEDY REMAIN VALID, AND MAKES A 

SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT INCREASING THE IMPACT 

OF THE MEASURE. 

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:101)(cid:81)(cid:98)(cid:58)(cid:73)(cid:81)(cid:105)(cid:73)(cid:81)(cid:105)(cid:113)(cid:98)(cid:73)(cid:104)(cid:65)(cid:113)(cid:73)(cid:65)