Special Report No 7/2011 ‘Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?’
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: State aid, aid system, aid to agriculture, control of State aid

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

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

I

1
1
0
2

7
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT 

WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 7 

 2011

IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT 
SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED 
AND MANAGED?

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

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

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 7 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-201-9

doi:10.2865/41418

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

GLOSSARY

I–V	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–12	

1–2	

INTRODUCTION

AGRICULTURE	AND	ENVIRONMENT	—	AN	AMBIVALENT	PARTNERSHIP

3–11	

EU	SUPPORT	FOR	AGRI-ENVIRONMENT	PAYMENTS

12	

PREVIOUS	AUDITS	OF	THE	COURT

13–16	

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

17–94	

OBSERVATIONS

17–51	

20–27 

28–34 

	IS	AGRI-ENVIRONMENT	POLICY	DESIGNED	AND	MONITORED	SO	AS	TO	
DELIVER	TANGIBLE	ENVIRONMENTAL	BENEFITS?

 THE OBJECTIVES OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO 
ASSESS WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED

 THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES CITED DO NOT PROVIDE A CLEAR JUSTIFICATION OF 
AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS

35–39 

EXAMPLES OF PRACTICES DESIGNED TO DELIVER TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

40–51 

ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT POLICY CANNOT BE EASILY MONITORED

52–69	

54–57 

	ARE	FARMERS	WELL	SUPPORTED	THROUGH	APPROPRIATE	GUIDANCE	AND	
CORRECT	AID	AMOUNTS?

 FARMERS ARE GENERALLY WELL SUPPORTED THROUGH APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE BUT DISSEMINATION  
OF GOOD PRACTICES CAN BE IMPROVED

58–69 

WEAKNESSES IN ESTABLISHING AID AMOUNTS FOR AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

	
4

70–94	

	DOES	THE	MANAGEMENT	OF	AGRI-ENVIRONMENT	POLICY	TAKE	ACCOUNT	
OF	SPECIFIC	ENVIRONMENTAL	NEEDS?

72–83 

LIMITED USE OF TARGETING AND SELECTION PROCEDURES 

84–94 

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS DOES NOT OPTIMISE VALUE FOR MONEY

95–100	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEX	I	 —		MAIN	FINDINGS	FROM	PREVIOUS	COURT	REPORTS	ON	AGRI-ENVIRONMENT

ANNEX	II	 —			DESCRIPTION	AND	INDICATION	OF	THE	ORIGIN	OF	THE	AUDIT	CRITERIA	USED	TO						

ANSWER	THE	AUDIT	QUESTIONS

ANNEX	III	 —			OUTPUT	AND	RESULT	INDICATORS	REPORTED	BY	THE	EIGHT	MEMBER	STATES			

AUDITED

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

	
	
	
GLOSSARY

55

Agri-environment	payments: The financially largest measure for the implementation of the EU’s rural 
development policy, first introduced into the CAP in 1987 on an optional basis and since 1992 as a 
compulsory measure for Member States. Currently governed by Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005.

Agri-environment	sub-measure: An aid scheme used by Member States to implement agri-environ-
ment payments that is characterised by the practices that farmers are required to apply. A rural devel-
opment programme includes several agri-environment sub-measures, typically around 10. Examples of 
agri-environment sub-measures are the extensification of farming systems, crop rotation and biodiver-
sity conservation actions.

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy.

Common	monitoring	and	evaluation	framework: An approach developed by the Commission and the 
Member States designed to report on the financial execution, outputs, results and impacts of rural devel-
opment programmes.

Community	strategic	guidelines: EU priorities for rural development for the 2007–13 programming 
period adopted by the Council (Decision 2006/144/EC).

Farming	practice: Agricultural production method, which may have positive or negative effects on the 
environment.

High	nature	value	farming: Types of farming and farmland with characteristics that mean that they can 
be expected to support high levels of biodiversity or species and habitats where there are conservation 
concerns.

Impact	indicators: Used to measure longer term socioeconomic and environmental effects that can be 
observed after a certain period, for rural development established at programme level. The indicators 
relevant for agri-environment are: reversal in biodiversity decline, trends in farmland bird populations, 
maintenance of High nature value farmland and forestry, improvement in water quality and contribution 
to combating climatic change.

Integrated	production: A farming system, without a uniform set of requirements at EU level, aimed at 
using natural resources and securing sustainable farming, in particular by minimising polluting inputs.

Member	State: In the context of this audit, the authorities in charge of the management of agri-envi-
ronment payments. Member States designate a Managing Authority for this. In regionalised Member 
States like Germany, Spain and Italy, each region has a separate programme and a separate Managing 
Authority.

Natura	2000	areas: An EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats 
Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).

Organic	farming: A method for producing food products designed to minimise human impact on the 
environment. Since 1991, requirements have been set at EU level, including for production methods and 
inspection. Currently governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.

Output	indicators: Used to measure what has been accomplished with an intervention — for agri-
environment, the number of farms/contracts and the area (number of hectares) or number of animals 
supported under the measure.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

6

Physical	area	supported: Utilised agricultural area of farmers and other land managers which is subject 
to agri-environment commitments. If several commitments apply to the same area, the total area under 
commitments can only be counted once for this indicator.

Reference	level: The situation against which it is measured that agri-environment payments only com-
pensate farmers for practices which are more demanding than those required by law. An important ele-
ment of the reference level is ‘cross compliance’, relating to the requirements listed in Annexes II and III 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in the area of public, animal and plant health, the environment, 
animal welfare and maintaining the land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

Result	indicators: Used to measure the direct changes brought about by programme interventions — 
for axis 2 measures including agri-environment, the area (number of hectares) under successful land 
management contributing to a specific objective (e.g. improvement of water quality).

River	 basin: The  area  of  land  from  which  all  surface  run-off  flows  through  a  sequence  of  streams, 
rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta (Article 2 of Directive 
2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy).

Rural	 development	 programme:  Key  programming  document  prepared  by  a  Member  State  and 
approved by the Commission for the planning and implementation of the EU’s rural development policy. 
It covers the period between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2013 and may contain up to 40 measures, 
one of which is agri-environment payments.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

77

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

I.
A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i s   a   k e y   E U   p o l i c y ;   i t 
i n v o l v e s   a r o u n d   2 , 5   b i l l i o n   e u r o   o f   E U 
funds per year and aims to respond to soci-
e t y ’s   i n c r e a s i n g   d e m a n d   f o r   e n v i r o n m e n -
t a l   s e r v i c e s.   M a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h i s   p o l i c y   i s 
s h a r e d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s .   A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s 
a r e   c h a r a c t e r i s e d   b y   a   w i d e   d i v e r s i t y   o f 
f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
a n d   b y   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   f a r m e r   p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
i s   vo l u nt a r y.   Ag a i n s t   t h i s   b a c k gro u n d,   t h e 
C o u r t ’s   a u d i t   a s s e s s e d   w h e t h e r   t h i s   r u r a l 
development measure is well designed and 
 man aged.

II.
The  Cour t  found  t hat  t he  obj e c t ives   d ete r-
m i n e d   b y   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   n u m e r -
o u s   a n d   n o t   s p e c i f i c   e n o u g h   fo r   a s s e s s i n g 
w h e t h e r   o r   n o t   t h e y   h a v e   b e e n   a c h i e v e d . 
A l t h o u g h   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s 
a r e   i d e n t i f i e d   i n   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
g r a m m e s ,   t h e y   c a n n o t   b e   e a s i l y   u s e d   t o 
p r o v i d e   a   c l e a r   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   o f   a g r i - e n v i -
r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s .   T h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
o f   a   c o m m o n   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n 
f ra m e wo r k   re p re s e nt s   p ro gre s s   i n   te r m s   o f 
m o n i t o r i n g   s y s t e m s,   a n d   p o c k e t s   o f   g o o d 
p ra c t i ce   o u t s i d e   t h i s   f ra m e wo r k   we re   a l s o 
i d e n t i f i e d .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   c o n s i d e r a b l e 
p ro b l e m s   ex i s te d   a s   re g a rd s   t h e   re l e va n ce 
a n d   r e l i a b i l i t y   o f   m a n a g e m e n t   i n f o r m a -
t i o n .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r,   v e r y   l i t t l e   i n fo r m a t i o n 
w a s   a v a i l a b l e   o n   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   b e n -
efit s of agr i- environment payments.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

8

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

V.
The  Cour t reco mm en ds t hat:

 Ū the Commission and the M ember States 
sh ould  bet ter   c lar ify,   j ustif y  an d  re por t 
on a gr i- environ me nt  s ub -meas ure s ;

 Ū t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   a s s e s s   m o r e 
r i g o ro u s l y   k e y   e l e m e n t s   i n   r u ra l   d e ve l -
o p m e n t   p ro gr a m m e s   b e fo re   a p p rov i n g 
th em;

 Ū f o r   t h e   n e x t   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d   t h e 

Commission  should con sider  wh e th e r :

 Ū a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   e x p e n d i t u r e 

sh ould  be more  prec isely  targete d;

 Ū t h e re   s h o u l d   b e   a   h i g h e r   rate   o f   E U 
co nt r i b u t i o n   fo r   s u b - m e a s u re s   w i t h 
a h igh er environ ment al pote nt ial;

 Ū t h e r e   s h o u l d   b e   a   c l e a r   d i s t i n c t i o n 
b e t we e n   s i m p l e   a n d   m o re   d e m a n d-
ing agri- environment sub -measures; 
an d

 Ū t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h o u l d   b e   m o re 
proac tive in managing agri- environ -
ment  paym ents.

III.
Fa r m e r s   a r e   c r u c i a l   f o r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a -
t i o n   o f   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   p ay m e nt s,   a n d   i t 
i s   i m p o r t a n t   t h a t   t h e y   a re   we l l   s u p p o r t e d 
t h r o u g h   g u i d a n c e   a n d   t h a t   a i d   a m o u n t s 
p rov i d e   t h e m   w i t h   t h e   r i g ht   i n ce nt i ve.  Th e 
s ys te m s   fo r   p rov i d i n g   g u i d a n ce   to   f a r m e r s 
w e r e   g e n e r a l l y   w e l l   i m p l e m e n t e d .   H o w -
e v e r,   c o n s i d e r a b l e   p r o b l e m s   w e r e   i d e n t i -
f i e d   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t s,   r a n g i n g 
f r o m   s h o r t c o m i n g s   i n   t h e i r   c a l c u l a t i o n 
t o   a   l a c k   o f   d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n   a c c o r d i n g   t o 
regional o r l o ca l s ite co ndit io ns.

IV.
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   r e q u i r e d   b y   E U   l a w   t o 
make suppor t available in accordance with 
s p e c i f i c   n e e d s .   H o w e v e r,   t h e   a u d i t   f o u n d 
t h a t   m o s t   e x p e n d i t u re   w a s   m a d e   o n   h o r i -
z o n t a l   s u b - m e a s u r e s ,   w i t h o u t   a p p l y i n g 
s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s .   T h i s   w a s   n o t   s u p -
p o r t e d   b y   d e c i s i o n s   a b o u t   t h e   d e s i r a b l e 
d e g r e e   o f   t a r g e t i n g ,   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e 
c o s t s   i n v o l v e d .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   m a n a g e m e n t 
d e c i s i o n s   w e r e   n o t   s u f f i c i e n t l y   e v i d e n c e -
b a s e d   a n d   d i d   n o t   fo c u s   p ay m e nt s   at   s p e -
cific enviro nme nt al p ro b l ems.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

1.	

2.	

3.	

INTRODUCTION

9

AG R I C U LT U R E 	 A N D 	 E N V I R O N M E N T 	 —	 	
A N 	 A M B I VA L E N T 	 PA R T N E R S H I P

Since the 1970s and 1980s there has been rising concern about 
the   adve rse  effec t s   of  agr ic ult ure  on   th e  e nvi ron me nt.  Th es e 
con ce r n,  inter al ia, the increas ing s pec i ali sat ion  of  far ms,  t he 
use   o f  fer t iliser s  and  p estic ides,   h ig h   s tock in g   de ns i tie s  an d, 
i n   p a r t i c u l a r   i n   t h e   s o u t h e r n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   t h e   e x t e n s i o n 
o f   i r r i g ate d   a re a s.   Pr i ce   g u a ra nte e s   fo r   a gr i c u l t u ra l   p ro d u c t s 
previously offered under the common agricultural polic y have 
enco urag ed th ese intens ive far m in g  prac t ice s.

1  Recital 35 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 

20 September 2005 on support 

for rural development by the 

European Agricultural Fund for 

Rural Development (EAFRD)  

(OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).

Cer tain types of extensive farming, on the other hand, can pre-
ser ve th e e nviro n mental  as sets of  t he  countr ys id e. Th e aban -
donment of ex tensive far ms and their land is becoming an in-
creasing problem in some regions of the European  Union (EU), 
with negative impac ts on biodiversity and landscape diversity, 
als o  le ading to  a h igher  r isk  of fore st  f ire s.

E U 	 S U P P O R T 	 F O R 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T	
PAYM E N T S

S i n ce   1 9 8 7 ,   t h e   E U   h a s   co - f i n a n ce d   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a te s’  a gr i -
environment payments in order to address the dual challenge 
o f   re d u c i n g   t h e   n e g at i ve   e f fe c t s   o f   i nte n s i ve   a gr i c u l t u re   a n d 
maint a ining  t he p os it ive effec ts  of  ex te n si ve agr i c ulture.  Th e 
p u r p o s e   o f   t h e s e   p a y m e n t s   i s   t o  ‘ f u r t h e r   e n c o u r a g e   f a r m e r s 
and other land managers to ser ve societ y as a whole by intro -
d u c i n g   o r   co nt i n u i n g   to   a p p l y   a gr i c u l t u ra l   p ro d u c t i o n   m e t h -
o d s   co m p at i b l e   w i t h   t h e   p ro te c t i o n   a n d   i m p rove m e nt   o f   t h e 
environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, 
the  so il  an d gen etic divers it y ’  1.

EU funds allocated to agri- environment payments for 
20 07–13:  2 2,2  b illio n  euro

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

10

4.	

Since 2000, agri- environment payments have been par t of the 
EU’s rural development polic y, which is implemented through 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   p r e p a r e d   b y   t h e   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   f o r   a   p e r i o d   o f   s e v e n   y e a r s .   I t   i s   m a n d a t o r y   f o r   t h e 
M ember States to include agri- environment payments in their 
p r o g r a m m e s   a n d ,   fo r   t h e   c u r r e n t   p e r i o d ,   c o v e r i n g   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 , 
M ember States have allocated 22,2 billion euro in EU funds to 
the m.  Figu r e 1 sh ows al l ocation s by M e mbe r St ate.  Ac t ua l E U 
expenditure for the financial year 2009 amounted to 2,5 billion 
euro,  and to 7,7  b il l io n euro  for  t he  f ir s t  ha lf  of  th e  progra m-
ming  p er iod (1 J anu ar y 2007– 1 J uly  2 0 1 0 )  2.

2  The amounts of 2,5 and 
7,7 billion euro represent a 

normal expenditure pattern. 

The initial allocation for agri-

environment in 2007 (20,2 billion 

euro) was increased by 2 billion 

euro following the review 

of the CAP (in the context 

of the health check and the 

recovery package). In addition, 

expenditure in 2007 and 2008 

was relatively low because the 

programmes were still being 

approved.

F I G U R E 	 1

E U 	 F U N D S 	 A L LO C AT E D 	TO 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S 	 ( 2007 – 13 )	
( A S 	 A P P R O V E D 	 I N 	 R U R A L 	 D E V E LO P M E N T 	 P R O G R A M M E S 	 BY 	 D E C E M B E R 	 20 09 )

o
r
u
e
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

m
u
g

i

l
e
B

a
i
r
a
g

l

u
B

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

e
c
e
e
r
G

n
i
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l

o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
n
e
v
o

l
S

a
i
k
a
v
o

l
S

d
n
a
l

n
i
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Source: Agriculture and Rural Development DG: Rural Development in the European Union — Statistical and Economic 
Information — Report 2009, December 2009 (Section 4.1.1 EAFRD  Overview of the Financial Plans).

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

 
 
 
 
11

5.	

A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   a r e   g e n e r a l l y   i m p l e m e n t e d 
through contracts between a public body in the Member States 
a n d   a   b e n e f i c i a r y   ( f a r m e r   o r   l a n d   m a n a g e r ) .  Th e s e   co nt ra c t s, 
w h i c h   n o r m a l l y   cove r   f i ve   to   s e ve n   ye a r s,   d e t a i l   t h e   co m m i t-
m e n t s   t h a t   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   i s   r e q u i r e d   t o   e n t e r   i n t o.   T h e s e 
co m m i t m e nt s   cove r   a   w i d e   ra n g e   o f   f a r m i n g   p ra c t i ce s   w h i c h 
can b e  grou p ed as s et ou t b elow.

Main groups of farming practices for agri-environment payments

o	 Organic	farming	(see	glossary)

o	

Integrated	production	(see	glossary)

o	 Other	extensification	of	farming	systems:	fertiliser	reduction,	pesticide	reduction	and	

extensification	of	livestock	farming

o	

Crop	rotation,	maintenance	of	set-aside	areas

o	 Action	to	prevent	or	reduce	soil	erosion

o	 Genetic	resources	(local	breeds	in	danger	of	being	lost	to	farming,	plants	under	threat	of	

genetic	erosion)

o	 Biodiversity	conservation	and	enhancement	actions

o	 Upkeep	of	the	landscape	including	the	conservation	of	historical	features	on	agricultural	land

o	 Water-related	actions	(apart	from	nutrient	management)	such	as	buffer	strips,	field	margins,	

wetland	management.

6.	

7.	

A fundamental principle for agri- environment payments is that 
the decision to apply for and conclude a contrac t is voluntar y 
f o r   f a r m e r s .   T h i s   m e a n s   t h a t   t h e   l e v e l   o f   p a y m e n t s   m u s t   b e 
sufficiently attractive in relation to the commitments to be ful-
fil le d  and   as soc iated  co sts.   S up por t   pai d  to  th e   be n ef ici ar i es 
must be based solely on additional costs and income foregone 
as the result of agri- environmental commitments; there is also 
the possibil it y to include tran sac t ion  cos ts.

Ag r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   c a n n o t   c o m p e n s a t e   f a r m e r s   fo r 
p r a c t i ce s   t h a t   h ave   b e e n   m a d e   c o m p u l s o r y   by   l aw.  Th e   s i t u -
a t i o n   a g a i n s t   w h i c h   a d d i t i o n a l   c o m m i t m e n t s   a r e   m e a s u r e d 
ent ail s  a ‘ ba sel ine’  or  ‘reference   leve l ’.  Th e  ex pec te d  env iron-
m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   a b o v e   t h i s   l e v e l   c a n   v a r y   s i g n i f i c a n t l y,   a n d 
dep end   pr inc ip all y   on  how  deman d in g   th e  f ar mi ng   prac ti ce s 
con ce r ne d are.  S ee Fig ur e  2 for fur t he r details.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

12

8.	

E v a l u a t i o n s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i d e n t i f y   t w o   p o s s i b l e 
 approaches for implementing the measure which are refer red 
to as ‘broad and shallow ’ versus ‘deep and narrow ’, ‘entr y-level 
schemes’ versus ‘ higher-level schemes’, or ‘ basic ’ versus ‘more 
dem andin g’  3.  Suc h a dist inc tion  is base d on t h e concept  t hat 
t h e   t w o   a p p r o a c h e s   h a ve   a   f u n d a m e n t a l l y   d i f fe r e n t   l o g i c   t o 
i m p l e m e n t   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s :   t h e   a r e a s   o n   w h i c h 
t h e   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a p p l y   a r e   d i f f e r e n t   a s   a r e   t h e   n u m b e r   o f 
b e n e f i c i a r i e s   c o n c e r n e d ,   t h e   b u d g e t a r y   a n d   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
cos ts   in cur red,  the  ap pl ic ab le  m an ag eme nt  r ule s  a nd  t h e  ex-
pec ted effec ts. These well- established ways of analysing agr i-
e nv i ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u re s   d o   n o t   a p p e a r   i n   t h e   l e gi s l a t i o n , 
l e a v i n g   t h e   c h o i c e   o f   w h i c h   a p p r o a c h   t o   u s e,   d e p e n d i n g   o n 
t h e   co ntex t   a n d   t h e   n at u re   o f   t h e   p ro b l e m s,   to   t h e   re s p o n s i-
b l e   a u t h o r i t i e s .   T h e   C o m m u n i c a t i o n   f r o m   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   4 
l a u n c h i n g   t h e   d e b a t e   f o r   t h e   p e r i o d   p o s t - 2 0 1 3   p r o p o s e s   a s 
an option that simple, generalised agri- environmental ac tions 
wil l  b e p ar t  of d irec t p aym ents.

P i c t u r e 	 1 : 	 E x a m p l e 	 o f 	 a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t 	 i n 	 E n g l a n d 	 s h o w i n g, 	 f r o m 	 l e f t	
to 	 ri g ht, 	 a	 parce l 	 with 	 whe at, 	 a	 st r ip 	 of 	 untreated 	‘ headland ’	 and 	 a	 strip	
sow n	w i th	a	‘wild	bird	se ed	mix ’.

3  The Commission’s 
‘Impact Assessment of rural 

development programmes 

in view of post-2006 rural 

development policy’ (Agriculture 

and Rural Development DG, 

Final Report submitted by EPEC, 

November 2004) mentions on 

page 85 that ‘this ‘narrow and 

deep’ or ‘broad and shallow’ 

debate has been prominent 

since the introduction of agri-

environment policy, and both 

approaches are evident among 

current agri-environment 

programmes’. This distinction 

is included in various other 

evaluation reports for the 

European Commission, as 

early as 1998 (evaluation of 

Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 

(document Agriculture and Rural 

Development DG VI/7655/98).

4 

‘The CAP towards 2020: 

Meeting the food, natural 

resources and territorial 

challenges of the future’, 

COM(2010) 672 final of 

18 November 2010.

© European Union, source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

13

9.	

Bas ic   agr i- e nvironment  s ub -mea sure s  ca n  be   a  cost- ef fec tive 
w ay   o f   i m p l e m e n t i n g   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p ay m e n t s   w h e n   i t   i s 
necessar y to take ac tion over a wide area. These sub -measures 
are characterised by simple and generalised actions (e.g. main-
te n a n ce   o f   gra s s l a n d,  gree n   cove r   o f   a gr i c u l t u ra l   l a n d )   a n d   a 
h i g h   n u m b e r   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s .   B e c a u s e   d e m a n d s   o n   f a r m e r s 
are l imite d t he aid amo unts  are  re lat ivel y  low.

F I G U R E 	 2

I N T E R V E N T I O N 	 LO G I C 	 O F 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S

Environmental benefits
for the most demanding
requirements

Reference level

Level 
of 
effort

Around 600 000 farmers
receiving agri-environment
payments (on 17,5 million 
hectares) who have to fulfil
requirements going beyond 
the mandatory ones

Around 7,3 million farmers (on 160 million hectares) who must fulfil mandatory requirements

Number of beneficiaries, land area

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

14

10.   M o re   d e m a n d i n g   s u b - m e a s u re s,   o n   t h e   c o n t r a r y,   c a n   b e   t a i -
l o r e d   t o   l o c a l   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   a n d   r e q u i r e   m o r e   c o m p l e x   a n d 
demanding t ypes of farm management. M ember States gener-
a l l y   i m p l e m e n t   t h e s e   s c h e m e s   i n   m o re   l i m i t e d   g e o g r a p h i c a l 
 a re a s   5,   i nvo l v i n g   s m a l l e r   n u m b e r s   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s.   B e c a u s e 
m o re   s u b s t a n t i a l   d e m a n d s   a re   m a d e   o f   t h e   f a r m e r s,   c a u s i n g 
hi gh er  cos t s  and /o r  l o ss   o f  incom e,  t he   ai d  amounts   are  re la -
t i v e l y   h i g h .   B e c a u s e   o f   t h e   h i g h e r   r e q u i r e m e n t s ,   t a i l o r e d   t o 
s p e c i f i c   a r e a s ,   m o r e   d e m a n d i n g   s u b - m e a s u r e s   h a v e   t h e   p o -
tential   to   del ive r  greater  environ me nt al  be n ef i ts   per   h e c tare 
sup p o r ted,  but  at a high er cost.

5  An exception is organic 
farming, which is one of the 

most demanding types of 

farm management, but is 

implemented over a large 

geographical area.

11.  

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a n d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h a r e   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t 
of the agri- environment payments. The Commission appraises 
a n d   a p p r o v e s   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   p r e p a r e d 
a n d   s u b m i t t e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s.  T h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a d o p t 
all the legislative, statutor y and administrative provisions re -
q u i re d   t o   e n s u re   t h a t   f u n d s   a re   s p e n t   c o r re c t l y.  Th e   f a r m e r s 
( o r   l a n d   m a n a g e r s )   e n t e r   i n t o   a   c o n t r a c t   w i t h   t h e   r e l e v a n t 
Member State Managing Body and are responsible for ac tually 
a p p l y i n g   t h e   f a r m i n g   p ra c t i ce s   i n   a cco rd a n ce   w i t h   t h e   te r m s 
of  this  co nt rac t. 

Agri-environment payments in brief

o	

Encourage	farmers	to	apply	agricultural	production	methods	compatible	with	the	protection	
of	the	environment.

o	 Key	EU	policy	on	which	around	2,5	billion	euro	of	EU	funds	per	year	is	spent.

o	 Mandatory	for	the	Member	States	but	voluntary	for	farmers.

o	

Commitments	must	exceed	a	reference	level.

o	 Payments	are	based	on	additional	costs	and	income	foregone,	with	the	possibility	of	includ-

ing	transaction	costs.	Incentives	are	forbidden.

o	 Management	responsibilities	are	shared	between	the	Commission	and	the	Member	States.

P R E V I O U S 	 AU D I T S 	 O F 	T H E 	 CO U R T

12.  

The Cour t has previously audited agr i- environment payments 
a n d   i d e n t i f i e d   a   n u m b e r   o f   w e a k n e s s e s .   T h e   m a i n   o n e s   a r e 
mentio ned in A n nex  I.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

15

13.  

Th e   p u r p o s e   o f   t h i s   a u d i t   i s   to   d e te r m i n e   w h e t h e r   a gr i - e nv i-
ronm ent sche mes are wel l  des ign e d an d  man ag e d.  M ore spe -
cific al ly,  t he au dit aims to an swe r  th e  follow in g  ques ti ons :

6  This panel consisted of 
nine experts: three from 

public research institutes (the 

French ‘National Agronomic 

 Ū i s   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p o l i c y   d e s i g n e d   a n d   m o n i t o re d   s o   a s 

Research Institute’, the German 

to  de live r tangib l e environmenta l be ne f it s?

‘von Thünen Institute’ and 

the Irish ‘Teagasc Research 

 Ū are  far mer s  we ll   s up p o r ted  t hrou gh   appropr iate   g uid an ce 

Centre’), two from universities 

(of Copenhagen and 

Gloucestershire), two from 

European organisations (the 

European Environment Agency 

and the Joint Research Centre), 

one from an environmental NGO 

and one from an organisation 

representing farmers at EU level.

7  Such practices are, for 
instance, guidance provided 

to beneficiaries to help them 

implement the sub-measures, 

the design and monitoring of 

outcome-based sub-measures 

and the targeting of sub-

measures to precisely identified 

needs.

and  cor rec t  a id  amou nts?

 Ū do es  t he manag ement  of agr i- environm e nt  poli c y t ake  ac -

co unt  o f sp ecific enviro nmental n ee ds ?

14.  

15.  

16.  

T h e   C o u r t   e s t a b l i s h e d   a u d i t   c r i t e r i a   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   d e s i g n , 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g / e v a l u a t i o n   o f   a g r i - e nv i ro n -
m e n t   p ay m e n t s.  T h e s e   c r i t e r i a   we re   d e ve l o p e d   f ro m   l e g i s l a-
t i o n ,   Co m m i s s i o n   d o c u m e nt s   a n d   p u b l i c at i o n s   a n d   s c i e nt i f i c 
s t u d i e s   ( s e e   A n n e x   I I ) .  T h e   C o u r t   c o n s u l t e d   a   p a n e l   o f   a g r i -
env iro nme nt   exper ts   6  on   t he   validit y   and  fe asibilit y  of   t h es e 
audit criteria. I t also identified, through a documentar y review 
a n d   a f te r   co n s u l t at i o n   o f   t h e   p a n e l   o f   ex p e r t s,   a   s h o r t   l i s t   o f 
best prac tices  7 considered in the scientific literature as being 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   s u i t a b l e   fo r   co nt r i b u t i n g   towa rd s   i m p rov i n g   t h e 
e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s .   T h e   C o u r t 
carried out visits to England, the R hineland-Palatinate in G er -
many,  and the  Fren ch ‘Centre’ regi on wh ere ex ample s of  suc h 
prac t ice s co ul d b e ob s er ved.

Th e   a u d i t   s t a r te d   w i t h   a   d o c u m e nt a r y   re v i e w   o f   2 0 3   a gr i - e n -
viron ment co ntrac ts  s elec ted ran d omly  from th e expen d it ure 
declared by the Member States to the Commission for the year 
20 08.  Th e  samp le  covered  48   rural  de vel opme nt   programm es 
in  21 M ember States. 

The Cour t then selec ted eight programmes for fur ther detailed 
testing. The Member States (Regions) selec ted were Spain (An-
dalusia), I taly (Piedmont), G ermany (Berlin and Brandenburg), 
Sweden, Austria, Hungar y, Poland and France. I n each Member 
State, audit evidence was collec ted for a number of agri- envi -
ronmental sub -measures and examined by means of inter views 
a n d   t h e   a n a l y s i s   o f   d o c u m e n t s   a n d   d a t a .   A   n u m b e r   o f   f a r m s 
w e r e   a l s o   v i s i t e d   i n   o r d e r   t o   r e v i e w   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
agri- environment payments at farm level with the farmers and 
the  insp ec to rs  res p on sib l e for  on -th e - spot  c h ec ks.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

OBSERVATIONS

16

17.  

18.  

19.  

I S 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 P O L I C Y 	 D E S I G N E D	
A N D 	 M O N I TO R E D 	 S O 	 A S 	TO 	 D E L I V E R 	TA N G I B L E	
E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 B E N E F I T S ?

The  l e gal   b asis  contains   several   e le me nts   i nte n de d  to  e ns ure 
t h at   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   p ay m e nt s   i n d e e d   y i e l d   e nv i ro n m e nt a l 
b e n e f i t s.   M e m b e r   S t ate s   m u s t   d e s c r i b e   t h e   c u r re n t   s i t u at i o n 
o f   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t   i n   t h e i r   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e s. 
Th e y   m u s t   a l s o   i n c l u d e   a   d e s c r i p t i o n   a n d   j u s t i f i c at i o n   o f   t h e 
var io us  t ype s of  co mmitment for  agr i- e nv iron me nt pay me nts 
ba s e d  o n  the ir   ex p e c te d  e nv ironm e nta l   i m pa c t   in   relati o n   to 
env iro nme nt al n eeds and  p r ior it ie s   8.

The pr inciples of sound financial management set out in Ar ti-
cle  2 7 o f the  Finan cial  R egul at ion   9 req uire  that polic y  obj ec -
tives be formulated in a specific, measurable, achievable, rele -
va n t   a n d   t i m e d   m a n n e r.   E a c h   r u ra l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro gra m m e 
must include information on the specific ver ifiable objec tives 
o f   t h e   m e a s u re s   a n d   t h e i r   p ro gre s s   a n d   e f f i c i e n c y   a n d   e f fe c -
tive ness  must  be  meas ured in  re lat ion  to t h es e  obj e c t ive s 8.

T h e   Co u r t   e x a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   f o r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y -
ments   were  pre cis e  eno u gh  ( spe c if ic,   me as urabl e  an d  t ime d) 
to provide a sound basis for assessing whether they had been 
a c h i e v e d .  T h e   C o u r t   a l s o   e x a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e -
l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   p r o v i d e d   a   s o u n d   b a s i s   f o r   j u s t i f y i n g 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   p ay m e nt s   i n   re l at i o n   to   t h e   e nv i ro n m e nt a l 
p re s s u re s   i d e nt i f i e d.   As   t h e   ava i l a b i l i t y   o f   g o o d   q u a l i t y   d at a 
i s   a   p r e r e q u i s i t e   f o r   j u d g i n g   w h e t h e r   p o l i c i e s   a c h i e v e   t h e i r 
re s u l t s,   t h e   Co u r t   a s s e s s e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   s y s t e m s 
pro du ced  rel iab l e  data  w hic h  we re   re levant  for   ass e ssi n g  th e 
env iro nme nt al effec ts  of agr i- env i ron ment  pay me nt s.

8  See in particular 
Articles 16(a),16(c), 81(1) 

of Council Regulation (EC) 

No 1698/2005 and annex II 

of Commission Regulation 

(EC) No 1974/2006 (OJ L 368, 

23.12.2006, p. 15).

9  Council Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 

25 June 2002 on the Financial 

Regulation applicable to the 

general budget of the European 

Communities (OJ L 248, 

16.9.2002, p. 1).

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

17

T H E 	 O B J E C T I V E S 	 O F 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S 	 A R E	
N OT 	 S U F F I C I E N T LY 	 S P E C I F I C 	TO 	 A S S E S S 	W H E T H E R 	T H E Y	
H AV E 	 B E E N 	 AC H I E V E D

A g r i- e n v i r o n m e n t  o b j e c t i v e s  A r e   d e t e r m i n e d  A s  p A r t  o f  t h e 
o v e r A l l   f r A m e w o r k  f o r  r u r A l  d e v e l o p m e n t

20.   High-level legislation determines the legal framework for rural 
development in general, of which agri- environment payments 
a re   o n e   e l e m e n t .  Th e   Co u n c i l   s e t   o u t   t h e   E U’s   r u ra l   d e ve l o p -
ment priorities for the 2007–13 period in the Communit y stra-
te gi c   g u i d e l i n e s   ( s e e   g l o s s a r y ) .   Agr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p ay m e n t s, 
together with other rural development measures, are expected 
to  co nt r ib ute  towards   t hree  EU -l eve l  pr i or i t y   are as:   biod iver-
s i t y   a n d   t h e   p r e s e r v a t i o n   a n d   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   h i g h   n a t u r e 
value farming and forestr y systems and traditional agricultural 
la n dsc ap es; water ;  and c lim ate ch an ge.

21.  

22.  

EU objec tives, as set out in R egulation (EC ) No 1698/2005, are 
f a i r l y   g e n e r i c   a s   b e f i t s   t h e   wo rd i n g   o f   h i g h - l e ve l   l e gi s l at i o n . 
The Council regulation lays down the rural development polic y 
objec tives for coherent groups of measures (called ‘axes’). The 
objec tive of the axis of which agr i- environment payments are 
p ar t,  i s   to   i m prove  t h e  e nv i ron m e nt   an d   co u nt r ys i d e   by   s u p -
por ting  l and management.

n u m e r o u s  A n d  c o m p l e x  o b j e c t i v e s

Each M ember State must submit a national strategy plan indi -
cating the priorities of the ac tion of the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development and the Member State concerned, 
tak ing into account the Communit y strategic guidelines, spe -
c i f i c   o b j e c t i v e s   f o r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   a n d   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   r e -
sources available. Rural development programmes must ensure 
t h a t   E U   s u p p o r t   f o r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   c o n t r i b u t e s   t o w a r d s 
a c h i e v i n g   p r i o r i t i e s   a n d   o b j e c t i v e s   d e f i n e d   i n   t h e   C o m m u -
nit y strategic guidelines and the national strategy plans. They 
s h o u l d   i n c l u d e   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   a x e s   a n d   m e a s u r e s   p r o -
p o s e d   fo r   e a c h   a x i s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t h e   s p e c i f i c   v e r i f i a b l e   o b -
j e c t i ve s   t h at   a l l ow   t h e   p ro gra m m e’s   p ro gre s s,   e f f i c i e n c y   a n d 
effec t iveness  to  b e meas ured.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

 
18

10  The strategic environmental 
assessment forms part of the ex 

ante evaluation (see footnote 11) 

and addresses the requirements 

of the environmental assessment 

provided for in Directive 

2001/42/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council 

(OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30) 

(the ‘Strategic Environmental 

Assessment Directive’).

11  The ex ante evaluation 
is part of the procedure for 

drawing up a rural development 

programme; its aim is to 

optimise the allocation of 

budgetary resources and 

improve programming quality.

T h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   m e a s u r e   f o r   t h e   A n d a l u s i a n 
p r o g r a m m e   c o n t a i n s   a   v e r y   h i g h   n u m b e r   o f   o b j e c -
ti ves,  mak ing  i t dif f icult to measure the results

23.  

24.  

25.  

The objectives assigned to agri- environment payments that are 
set out in the various programming documents of ten result in 
an overly complicated framework . This is illustrated by the ex-
ample of Andalusia. The national strategy plan provides 20 en-
v i r o n m e n t a l   o b j e c t i v e s .   T h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e 
implements this struc ture by describing the agri- environment 
p a y m e n t s   i n   a   g e n e r a l   s e c t i o n   c o n t a i n i n g   e i g h t   o b j e c t i v e s , 
which are different from the 20 objec tives laid out previously 
or have  be en rep hrased in  a more g e n eral  man n er.

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e   c o n t a i n s   o b -
jec tives for each of the 15 agri- environment sub -measures (in 
t o t a l   5 1 ) ,   w h i c h   a r e   a g a i n   s o m e t i m e s   p a r t l y   o r   e n t i r e l y   d i f -
fere nt   f rom   t he  ob jec tives  set  out   in   t he   g en e ra l  par t. Tak i n g 
t h e   o v e r a l l   f r a m e w o r k   i n t o   a c c o u n t ,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   s t r a t e g i c 
environmental assessment  10 and the ex ante evaluation  11, the 
ve r y  hig h  numb er  o f  ob jec tives  make s   i t  di f fi c ul t  to  me as ure 
resu l ts.

The Cour t found that the objec tives included in rural develop -
m e nt   p ro gra m m e s   we re   n o t   s e t   o u t   i n   a   s p e c i f i c,   m e a s u ra b l e 
and timed manner. Member States formulated objectives gene -
r a l l y   i n   n o n - s p e c i f i c   t e r m s   l i k e  ‘re d u c e’,  ‘p ro t e c t ’,  ‘c o n t r i b u t e 
to’,   e tc.  Wh e n   q u a nt i f i c at i o n   wa s   p o s s i b l e,   t h i s   wa s   n o t   d o n e 
i n   m a ny   c a s e s   ( e. g.   re d u ce   by   2 0  % ) .   Fo r   e x a m p l e,   o b j e c t i ve s 
u s e d   i n   Po l a n d   f o r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   s u c h   a s 
‘a d e q u a t e   s o i l   u s e   a n d   w a t e r   p r o t e c t i o n’  a r e   n o t   v e r i f i a b l e . 
I n  add it ion,  t he  o b jec t ives  d o  n ot   i n clude  bas e lin e   l evel s  de -
s c r i b i n g   w h at   t h e   s i t u at i o n   wa s   b e fo re   t h e   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt 
payments were implemented and there are no time frames for 
the ir ac hie vement.  Su c h we ak n es s es, wh ich  were foun d in  all 
M e mb er  St ates   audited,   mak e  it   dif f ic ult   to  judg e   w he th e r   or 
not  o b je c t ives  a re achieved.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

19

26.   Never t hele ss,   g ood  examp l es  of   spe c if i c  a n d  m eas urable   o b -
j e c t i v e s   w e r e   a l s o   i d e n t i f i e d .   I n   S w e d e n ,   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
o b j e c t i ve s   a re   e m b e d d e d   i n   a   s e t   o f   n a t i o n a l   e nv i ro n m e n t a l 
qualit y objec tives which were adopted by the Swedish Par lia -
m e n t   i n   1 9 9 9 .  Th e   t i m e   h o r i zo n   fo r   t h e s e   o b j e c t i ve s   i s   2 0 2 0 , 
but interim targets relating to the situation in 2010 have been 
set  for m ost  o f the o b jec t ives.

27.  

Th e   b e s t   e x a m p l e s   we re   fo u n d   t o   b e   s o - c a l l e d  ‘o u tco m e - o r i -
e n t e d ’  s u b - m e a s u r e s ,   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   w h i c h   l e a d s   t o 
results that are direc tly obser vable on the ground. I n Andalu-
sia,  Piedmo nt  and France,  th ese s ub - me asure s  con cer ne d t h e 
p ro t e c t i o n   o f   b re e d s   i n   d a n g e r   o f   b e i n g   l o s t   to   f a r m i n g   ( s e e 
Pic tu re  2).  The sub -measu res in  th e R h in ela nd- Palat in ate an d 
Fr a n ce,   w h i c h   we re   a u d i te d   i n   t h e   co n te x t   o f   b e s t   p r a c t i ce s, 
con ce r ne d gras sl an d manageme nt ( se e  B ox  3) .

Pi c t ure	 2:	 E xa mple	 of	 ag ri- environ ment	 in	 France:	 protec ting	 a	 breed	 of	
h orse s	( ‘Arde nnais’)	in	dan ger 	of	b e ing	lost	to	farming.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

© European Union, source: European Court of Auditors.

20

T H E 	 E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 P R E S S U R E S 	 C I T E D	 	
D O 	 N OT 	 P R O V I D E 	 A 	 C L E A R 	 J U S T I F I C AT I O N	 	
O F 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S

e n v i r o n m e n t A l   p r e s s u r e s  A r e   i d e n t i f i e d  i n  t h e  r u r A l  d e v e l o p m e n t 
p r o g r A m m e s	 	

28.   All the rural development programmes audited identified the 
e x i s t i n g   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s .   T h e s e   c o n c e r n e d ,   i n   p a r -
t i c u l a r,   t h e   l o s s   o f   b i o d i ve r s i t y,   t h re a t s   to   w a te r   q u a l i t y,   s o i l 
e r o s i o n ,   a i r   p o l l u t i o n   a n d   c l i m a t e   c h a n g e .   I d e n t i f i c a t i o n   o f 
these pressures was largely based on the Community strategic 
guidelines in which the Council sets out the EU’s priorities for 
the  2007 –13 ru ral devel o p ment  program mi ng  pe r i od.

29.   M a p s   l o c a t i n g   t h e   i d e n t i f i e d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   a r e 
i n c l u d e d   i n   s e v e n   o u t   o f   t h e   e i g h t   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
grammes audited. Member States could generally provide docu -
m e n t s   s u p p o r t i n g   t h e i r   a n a l y s i s   o f   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s  
( e . g .   b y   d a t a   a n d   s t u d i e s ) .   A s   a n   i l l u s t r a t i o n ,   t h e   P i e d m o n t 
rural development programme includes various maps showing 
exist ing   so il  threat s  (dec rease  in   org an i c   mat ter,  compac t ion 
an d conta minat ion of  s oil s, etc) .  Th e m an agin g  aut hor it y  was 
also able to provide data classifying each of the 1  206 munici-
p a l i t i e s   i n   t h e   re g i o n   ( a n d   s p e c i f i c   p a r t s   o f   t h e m )   a c c o rd i n g 
t o   t h e   r i s k   o f   s o i l   e r o s i o n ,   b r o k e n   d o w n   i n t o   t h r e e   c l a s s e s 
( l e s s   t h a n   3   to n n e s   p e r   h e c t a re   a n d   p e r   ye a r,   b e t we e n   3   a n d 
15  to nnes, and  m ore t han 1 5 ton n e s) .

30.   H o w e v e r,   i n   a   n u m b e r   o f   p r o g r a m m e s   a u d i t e d ,   t h e   e nv i r o n -
m e n t a l   i s s u e s   w e r e   d e s c r i b e d   i n   a   g e n e r a l   m a n n e r   w i t h o u t 
providing a clear link with the agri- environment sub-measures. 
Fo r   e x a m p l e ,   i n   S p a i n ,   I t a l y   a n d   Fr a n c e ,   s o m e   o f   t h e   e n v i -
ronm ental  p res su res ident ified i n  t he  r ural  de vel opment  pro -
gram mes  were  no t addressed by agr i - e nvi ron me nt pay m ents. 
Such  ca ses were no t exp lain ed in  th e  program me s. 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

21

L i n k s  b e t w e e n  t h e  e n v i r o n m e n t  a n d  f a r m i n g  p r a c t i c e s  a r e  n u m e r o u s 
a n d  d i f f i c u L t  t o   e s t a b L i s h  w i t h  p r e c i s i o n

31.   An assessment of the ex tent to which agri- environment objec-
t i ve s   h ave   b e e n   a c h i e ve d   d e p e n d s   o n   t h e   e x i s te n ce   o f   a   l i n k 
bet ween the agri- environment sub -measures and the environ-
m e n t a l   p re s s u re s.   Agr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u re s   m ay   h ave 
a   p o s i t i ve   e f fe c t   o n   s e ve r a l   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   p re s s u re s   ( w a t e r, 
soil, air, biodiversit y, etc). Environmental pressures cannot be 
cle ar l y  p r io r it ized   or   ranked  as   t h ey   con ce r n   ele me nts  wh i ch 
are al l  rele vant, different in nature,  an d  not  com parabl e.

12  Maintenance of biodiversity 
and high nature value areas, 

protection of water resources, 

reduction of greenhouse gases, 

maintenance of agricultural 

activity in areas at risk of land 

abandonment, protection of the 

territory.

32.   As a consequence, the rural development programmes audited 
provide  n o o r o nl y l imited  infor m ati on  on  th e  relat ive  i mpor-
t a n ce   o f   t h e   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p re s s u re s   i d e nt i f i e d.   I n   a d d i t i o n , 
the y  do   n ot   identify   p recis e  links  to  agr i- e nv iron me nt al  s ub -
m e a s u re s   p ro p o s e d.  Th i s   m a k e s   i t   d i f f i c u l t   to   a s s e s s   t o   w h a t 
ex tent the sub -measures have had an influence on the specific 
e nv i ro n m e n t a l   p re s s u re   i d e n t i f i e d.  T h e r e fo r e,   m o s t   M e m b e r 
States assess the achievement of the agr i- environment objec-
tive s g l o bal ly, consider in g all sub - me asure s  tog e th e r.

33.  

Th e  ru ral   devel op ment   p ro gramme s  t hu s  st ate   th at  th ere  are 
m u l t i p l e   re l at i o n s h i p s   b e t we e n   t h e   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p re s s u re s 
and the farming prac tices suppor ted under agri- environment. 
To   a d d re s s   t h i s,   i n   t wo   o u t   o f   e i g ht   p ro gra m m e s   a u d i te d   t h e 
links bet ween environmental pressures and agr i- environment 
sub -meas ures co uld  b e c l assifie d as di re c t or  i n direc t. For  i n -
stance, in Piedmont, one of the agr i- environment sub -measu-
res a ud ited (su p p or t fo r integrate d produc ti on,  s ee  g loss ar y) 
w a s   e x p e c t e d   t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   f o u r   o u t   o f   t h e   f i v e   e n v i r o n-
mental objec tives  12, but only one was selec ted as a direc t and 
p r i n c i p a l   o b j e c t i v e   ( p r o t e c t i o n   o f   w a t e r   q u a l i t y ) .  T h i s   h e l p s 
clar ifying the contr ibution of the agr i- environment payments 
t o w a r d s   t h e   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   o b j e c t i v e s   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   f r a m e -
wo r k .

34.   Another example of a direc t link between an agri- environment 
s u b - m e a s u re   a n d   t h e   p re s s u re s   i d e nt i f i e d   wa s   i n   Po l a n d.   Ac-
c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   Po l i s h   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e ,   w i n d 
ero sio n is a threat  fo r 28  % of the  ter r itor y.  I ntroduc ing a s oi l 
cover dur ing the winter is a far ming prac tice which limits soil 
e ro s i o n   c a u s e d,   i n t e r   a l i a ,   b y   t h e   w i n d .  T h i s   p r a c t i c e   i s   s u p -
p o r te d   by   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   p ay m e nt s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   Po l i s h 
rura l d eve lo p ment  p rogramm e,  as  illus trate d i n Pic tu re 3. 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

22

Pi c t u re 	 3 : 	 E x a m p l e 	 o f 	 a g r i - e nv i ro n m e nt 	 i n 	 Po l a n d 	 s h ow i n g, 	 o n 	 t h e 	 r i g ht	
side,	an	area	without	plant	cover	and	soil	subjec t	to	wind	erosion,	where -
as	the	lef t	side	is	covered	by	r ye	planted	under	an	agri- environment	sub -
me asure 	to	protec t 	t he	soil	ag ains t	erosion.

© European Union, source: European Court of Auditors.

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 P R AC T I C E S 	 D E S I G N E D 	TO 	 D E L I V E R	
TA N G I B L E 	 E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 B E N E F I T S

c L e a r  r u L e s  i n  t h e  a L L o c a t i o n  o f  r e s o u r c e s

35.   W h e n   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   p re s s u re s   a re   i d e n t i f i e d,   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n 
o f   re s o u rc e s   s h o u l d   b e   j u s t i f i e d   i n   t e r m s   o f   t h e i r   c o s t   e f fe c -
tiveness in achieving environmental benefits in the areas con -
ce r ned.  I n this regard,  E ngl an d,  for  exam ple,  wh i ch th e Cour t 
vis ited   to   review   b est   p rac t ice  s it uation s,  i mple me nts  an   ap -
proach which separates entr y and higher-level sub -measures. 
Th i s   h a s   i m p rove d   t h e   c l a r i t y   a n d   v i s i b i l i t y   o f   re s u l t s,   a s   d e -
scr ib ed  in  B ox  1.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

23

36.  

Three of the M ember States audited also use separate budget 
a l l o c a t i o n s   f o r   d i f f e r e n t   t y p e s   o f   s u b - m e a s u r e s .   I n   i t s   r u r a l 
deve lo p ment  p rogram me,   H ung ar y   s tate s  th at  i t  doe s  n ot  i n-
tend   to   s pend  mo re  th an  35  %  of  th e  allocate d  funds   on  s ub -
measures with lower environmental outputs. Poland allocated 
a   s p e c i f i c   b u d g e t   t o   t w o   o f   t h e   n i n e   s u b - m e a s u r e s   i n   i t s   r u-
ra l   d e ve l o p m e nt   p ro gra m m e.  Th e   b u d g e t   a l l o c ate d   to   o n e   o f 
t h e m ,   co n ce r n i n g   t h e   p ro te c t i o n   o f   e n d a n g e re d   b i rd   s p e c i e s 
an d n at ural hab itats  in N atu ra 2 0 0 0  are as,  repres ent s 1 9 % of 
the total budget for agri- environment payments for the period 
20 07– 13. France al l oc ated 2 7 % of th e 2 00 7–1 3  budget to th e 
targ ete d sub -meas ures  d es cr ibe d  in  B ox  5.

a L t e r n a t i v e  p o L i c i e s  t o   a g r i- e n v i r o n m e n t  p a y m e n t s  w e r e   g i v e n 
L i t t L e  c o n s i d e r a t i o n

37.   Ag r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p ay m e n t s   a re   o n e   o f   a   n u m b e r   o f   p o l i c i e s 
u s e d   t o   p r o t e c t   a n d   i m p r o v e   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t .  T h e   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   c a n ,   f o r   i n s t a n c e ,   a l s o   a c t   t h r o u g h   r e g u l a t o r y   p r o v i -
sions, specific taxes or enhanced training and advice. Conside -
r ing   s uc h  alte r native  p ol ic ies  would   h e lp  de mon st rate   wh ere 
t h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t   a p p r o a c h   i s   t h e   b e s t   w a y   t o 
tac k l e  t he p ressu res identified.   

B O X 	 1

E N T R Y 	 A N D 	 H I G H E R - L E V E L 	 S U B - M E A S U R E S 	 I N 	 E N G L A N D

In England the national authorities identified environmental pressures in different geographical areas. 
They analysed which type of sub-measure (in England split in entry and higher-level schemes) was 
more cost-effective in achieving environmental benefits. This resulted in a budget for entry-level 
schemes determined on the basis of a target to have 70 % of agricultural land under entry-level agri-
environment contracts. The remaining budget is allocated to higher-level schemes and is split over 
nine regions based on their size and environmental features as well as past and predicted uptake 
figures.

In each region, so called ‘target areas’ have been identified, which are prioritised under the higher-
level scheme on the basis of criteria such as relevance for biodiversity, landscape, natural resource 
protection (e.g. erosion), etc. For each target area, potential beneficiaries are informed on the land 
management activities adequate to the areas. Specific indicators are established to monitor the 
results obtained (see paragraph 51).

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

13  Special Report No 8/2008: 
Is cross compliance an effective 

policy, paragraph 60 and Box 3.

24

38.  

Th e Co ur t fo u nd onl y t wo cas es  ( Fran ce,  Swe de n ) whe re  suc h 
a l t e r n a t i v e   p o l i c i e s   w e r e   e x p l i c i t l y   c o n s i d e r e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l 
d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s .   T h e   S w e d i s h   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
p r o g r a m m e   e x p l a i n s   t h a t   t h e   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o v i s i o n s   i n   p l a c e 
a r e   a m o n g   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r t a n t   a l t e r n a t i v e   p o l i c y   m e a n s   fo r 
reducing the negative impact of the use of fer tilisers and plant 
p ro t e c t i o n   p ro d u c t s.  Th e   p ro g r a m m e   p rov i d e s   a   fo re c a s t   fo r 
fut u re   p ros pe c ts   and  envisages   t h e  re de si gn   of  agr i- e nvi ron-
ment payments in the light of legislative changes. The French 
p r o g r a m m e   d e s c r i b e s   t h e   s y n e r g y   b e t w e e n   n a t i o n a l   a n d   E U 
p o l i c i e s   a n d   m e n t i o n s   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p ay m e n t s   a s   o n e   o f 
the available tools (along with national regulations, tax polic y, 
etc)  fo r t ack l in g cer t ain  issu es ( biod iver s i t y,  wate r,  etc) .

39.  

In Poland and Germany (Berlin and Brandenburg), the rural de -
velopment programmes did not explain why agri- environment 
payments were the most adequate way to address the environ -
menta l nee ds. For  examp l e,  the Polis h  agr i - e nvi ron ment  sub -
m e a s u re   fo r   b u f fe r   s t r i p s   co u l d   a l s o   h ave   b e e n   i m p l e m e nte d 
through cross compliance, which is par t of the reference level 
(see   gl o ssar y). This  was   al ready  poi nte d  out  i n   a  pre vi ous   re -
por t  by t he Cou r t   13.

AC H I E V E M E N T S 	 O F 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 P O L I C Y 	 C A N N OT	
B E 	 E A S I LY 	 M O N I TO R E D

t h e  c o m m o n  m o n i t o r i n g  a n d  e v a L u a t i o n  f r a m e w o r k  r e p r e s e n t s 
p r o g r e s s  b u t  d o e s  n o t  p r o d u c e  s u f f i c i e n t,  r e L e v a n t  a n d  r e L i a b L e 
d a t a

40.  

T h e   c o m m o n   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   f r a m e w o r k   f o r   t h e 
2 0 0 7 – 1 3   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   r e p r e s e n t s   a n   i m -
p rove m e nt   co m p a re d   w i t h   t h e   s i t u at i o n   b e fo re   2 0 0 7 .   Am o n g 
o t h e r   t h i n g s ,   t h i s   f r a m e w o r k   p r o v i d e s   f o r   a   s e t   o f   c o m m o n 
i n d i c a t o r s   w h i c h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   m u s t   i n c l u d e   i n   t h e i r   p r o -
gram mes.  O u tp ut   and  resu l t  ind icator s   are   re por ted   ann uall y 
t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n .   T h e   l a t t e r   t h e n   c h e c k s   t h e   c o n s i s t e n c y 
and reliabilit y of the indicators and the data repor ted. On the 
b a s i s   o f   t h e s e   c h e c k s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i d e n t i f i e d   n u m e r o u s 
shor tcomings, the main ones being missing or incor rec t data, 
a   l a c k   o f   c o n s i s t e n c y   b e t we e n   d i f fe re n t   t a b l e s   a n d   m i s t a k e s 
in  rep o r ted exp endit ure. 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

25

41.  

42.  

43.  

T h e   Co u r t ’s   a u d i t   c o n f i r m e d   t h e   s h o r t c o m i n g s   i d e n t i f i e d   b y 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   f o u n d   t h a t   d a t a   f r o m   s e v e r a l   M e m b e r 
States were not reliable. For instance, in Andalusia, the output 
and result indicators bore no relation to the agri- environment 
e x p e n d i t u re.   I n   Fra n ce,   t h e   Co u r t   fo u n d   s e ve r a l   we a k n e s s e s, 
i n c l u d i n g   m i s s i n g   d at a   i n   t h e   t a b l e s   s e n t   to   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
for the year 2008. I n addition, the prac tice of continuing to in-
clude data af ter contrac ts have expired overstates the results 
of EU expenditure. All the finished schemes are considered to 
be continuing to provide the same effec ts until the end of the 
pro gram ming  p er io d   14.

Th e   co m m o n   m o n i to r i n g   a n d   e va l u at i o n   f ra m e wo r k   i n c l u d e s 
o u t p u t ,   r e s u l t   a n d   i m p a c t   i n d i c a t o r s .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   m u s t 
send an annual progress repor t on the implementation of the 
p ro g r a m m e   t o   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   i n c l u d i n g   o u t p u t   a n d   r e s u l t 
indicators. Data repor ted by the eight M ember States audited 
in their 2009 progress repor t is included as A nnex III. The im-
pac t indicators measure broad phenomena which are affec ted 
by   n u m e ro u s   o t h e r   f a c t o r s   i n   a d d i t i o n   t o   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t 
pro gram me su ppo r t   15.

The result indicator (‘area under successful land management ’) 
is  p ar t icul ar l y   un satis f ac to r y.   I t  is   i n   pra c ti ce  i de nt ic al   to  th e 
figure repor ted by the M ember States as the output indicator 
‘a re a   u n d e r   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u p p o r t ’.  Th i s   i s   b e c a u s e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   d o   n o t   d i s t i n g u i s h   b e t w e e n   t h e s e   t w o   i n d i c a t o r s 
an d al l  areas  u nder co ntrac t  are  con si de re d to be ‘s ucces sf ul ’. 
B e cau se of  t his, t he environ ment al be n ef it s a re i n suf fi c ie nt ly 
monitored: the audit identified cases where the agr i- environ-
ment contrac t was not successful, but was still included in the 
re s u l t   i n d i c a t o r.  T h e   n e x t   s e c t i o n   p ro v i d e s   e x a m p l e s   o f   h o w 
this cou l d be im p roved ( see paragraph s  4 8  to 5 1 ).

14  This is a simplification 
adopted under the common 

monitoring and evaluation 

framework. Some sub-measures 

bring their benefits as soon as 

they are implemented whereas 

some others start providing 

their benefits only at the end 

of the life cycle of the schemes. 

This led to the adoption of a 

single approach which assumes 

that the effects continue after 

the schemes are finished. This 

is not always true, for instance 

when a farmer paid for five 

years to convert to organic 

farming returns to conventional 

agriculture after the end of his 

contract.

15  The impact indicators 
are: reversal in biodiversity 

decline, maintenance of high 

nature farmland and forestry, 

improvement of water quality, 

and contribution to combating 

climatic change.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

26

44.   A s   t h e   c o m m o n   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   f r a m e w o r k 
i s   a   s t a n d a r d i s e d   s y s t e m ,   A r t i c l e   8 1   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   1 6 9 8 / 2 0 0 5   r e q u i r e s   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   i m p l e m e n t   a   l i m -
i t e d   n u m b e r   o f   a d d i t i o n a l   s p e c i f i c   i n d i c a t o r s .   A l t h o u g h   a l l 
t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s   a u d i te d   i n c l u d e d   a d d i t i o n a l   i n d i c ato r s   i n 
their programmes, weak nesses were found for all of them. The 
m a i n   w e a k n e s s e s   w e r e   t h a t ,   a l t h o u g h   s p e c i f i e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l 
deve lo p ment programmes,  addi ti on al in di cator s we re n ot re -
por ted,   over l ap p ed  w it h  exist in g   com mon   in di cator s  or   we re 
i n s u f f i c i e nt l y   s p e c i f i c   o r   e ve n   m i s s i n g   fo r   t h e   e nv i ro n m e nt a l 
pressures concerned. As an illustration of the latter weak ness, 
Hungar y has a number of agr i- environment sub -measures ad-
dressing specific environmental issues such as the high risk of 
wate r   a n d   w i n d   e ro s i o n   a n d   t h e   co n s e r vat i o n   o f   e n d a n g e re d 
b i r d   s p e c i e s .   H o w e v e r,   n o   a d d i t i o n a l   i n d i c a t o r s   w e r e   e s t a b -
l i s h e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e   t o   m o n i t o r   t h e 
rel evant  effec t s.

16  The common monitoring 
and evaluation framework 

includes the following baseline 

indicators relating to areas of 

specific environmental interest: 

high nature value farmland 

and forestry, areas polluted 

by nitrates and pesticides 

(vulnerable areas), areas at risk of 

soil erosion, less favoured areas, 

areas of extensive agriculture 

and Natura 2000 areas.

t h e  c o m m o n  m o n i t o r i n g  a n d  e v a L u a t i o n  f r a m e w o r k  i s  n o t  g e a r e d 
t o   a s s e s s  e n v i r o n m e n t a L   e f f e c t s

45.  

T h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s 
dep end   o n  t he  c harac ter is tics  of   t h e  are a  wh e re  th e y  are   im-
plemented. There are areas with specific environmental prob -
lem s,   s uch  as  t ho se  in cl u ded  un d er   th e  fram ewor k ’s   base li ne 
i n d i c ato r s   1 6,   a n d   o t h e r   a re a s   w i t h o u t   g e n e ra l   e nv i ro n m e nt a l 
pre ssu res.  I t is t herefore rel evant  to mon itor  w he re  f un ds  a re 
s p e n t .   D e s p i t e   t h i s   n e e d ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   g e n e r a l l y   d i d   n o t 
monitor how much money was spent in the relevant areas. For 
instance, in their rural development programmes, some M em-
ber States stated that the implementation of agri- environment 
p o l i c i e s   i n   N a t u r a   2 0 0 0   a r e a s   w a s   a   p r i o r i t y.   H o w e v e r,   t h e y 
were unable to provide information on how much was ac tually 
sp ent  in su ch areas.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

27

46.  

Th e environ mental ef fec ts  of  agr i- envi ron me nt  su b -m e asu res 
can var y significantly, depending on the level of requirements 
and type of area. However, the common monitoring and evalu-
a t i o n   f r a m e w o r k   d o e s   n o t   t a k e   t h i s   i n t o   a c c o u n t   fo r   r e p o r t -
i n g   o n   o u t p u t s   a n d   r e s u l t s .   A l l   f i g u r e s   a r e   a d d e d   t o g e t h e r, 
r e g a r d l e s s   o f   w h e t h e r   t h e r e   a r e   l i m i t e d   o r   m o r e   s u b s t a n t i a l 
effec t s.  I n p ar t ic u l ar, the figures  for  t h e sub -me as ures, wh ich 
generally produce more limited effec ts but over a wider area, 
a r e   a d d e d   t o g e t h e r   w i t h   t h e   f i g u r e s   f o r   t h e   s u b - m e a s u r e s , 
w h i c h   g e n e r a l l y   p ro d u c e   h i g h e r   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   b u t 
in  a s pe cific a rea. This  lead s to a  si tuat ion  wh ere re por t in g  is 
h e a v i l y   i n f l u e n c e d   b y   t h e   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a p p l i e d   o n   a   w i d e r 
area,  and w here fig ures  are n ot m ean i ng ful wh en  ag greg ated 
at  EU  le vel, as is il l us trated  in  B ox  2. 

B O X 	 2

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 A 	 N O N - M E A N I N G F U L 	 AG G R E G AT I O N 	 O F 	 F I G U R E S

One of the 15 sub-measures in the Spanish region of Andalusia supports beekeeping, aiming to pro-
tect biodiversity and maintain flora and fauna outside agricultural areas. It is a basic sub-measure, for 
which beneficiaries are financially supported with an amount of 21,40 euro/hectare. In 2008, Andalu-
sia reported EU expenditure of 7,9 million euro for 1 540 contracts implemented on 579 339 hectares. 
This sub-measure alone contributes to more than 3 % of the total figure 17 reported by the Commission 
for agri-environment at the EU level.

Another sub-measure in Andalusia is organic farming. The aid rates per hectare are, depending on 
the crop, between 123,10 and 600 euro/hectare. Andalusia plans to support 4 000 farmers per year, 
which, with an average farm size of 15 hectares, will be reported as 60 000 hectares, 0,3 % of the 
total EU figure. 

At EU level, the figures of 579 339 and 60 000 are added together, which is not meaningful. A typi-
cal contract for one beekeeper concerns 250 beehives and is reported as 500 hectares. To report 
a similar figure for organic farming requires more than 33 farmers implementing very demanding 
requirements.

17  Physical area supported under agri-environment payments (see glossary).

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

28

47.  

48.  

49.  

T h e   a u d i t   t o o k   p l a c e   m o r e   t h a n   t h r e e   y e a r s   a f t e r   t h e   s t a r t 
o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   h a d   v e r y   l i t t l e   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   e nv i r o n m e n t a l 
b e n e f i t s   o f   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   fo r   t h e   2 0 0 7 – 0 9   p e -
r iod. M e mb er States  g eneral ly agre ed  w it h t he  Cour t t h at t he 
c o m m o n   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   f r a m e wo r k   p rov i d e d   i n -
s u f f i c i e n t   i n f o r m a t i o n   i n   t h i s   r e s p e c t .   S o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
and the Commission suggested that this would be par t of the 
p r o g r a m m e   e v a l u a t i o n s .   H o w e v e r,   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   e n v i r o n -
m e nt a l   b e n e f i t s   i s   n e e d e d   b o t h   fo r   t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   a gr i -
e nv i ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u re s   a n d   t o   p rov i d e   a   s o u n d   b a s i s   fo r 
th e e va luato rs.

p o c k e t s  o f  g o o d  m o n i t o r i n g  p r a c t i c e  w e r e   f o u n d  o u t s i d e  t h e 
c o m m o n  m o n i t o r i n g  a n d  e v a L u a t i o n  f r a m e w o r k

I n   i t s   t h r e e   b e s t   p r a c t i c e   v i s i t s ,   t h e   C o u r t   i d e n t i f i e d   g o o d 
m o n i t o r i n g   p r a c t i c e s .   E a c h   o f   t h e s e   c a s e s   c o n c e r n e d   m o r e 
d e m a n d i n g   s u b - m e a s u re s   w h e re   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s 
we re  as se ssed  and  rep o r ted  out s i de   th e   comm on   mon itor i n g 
and  evalu at ion  framewo r k .  G en erali s in g  such  prac t ice s i n t he 
c o n t e x t   o f   a   c o m m o n   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   f r a m e wo r k 
c o u l d   b e   c o s t l y.   H o w e v e r,   t h e r e   i s   n o   a v a i l a b l e   e s t i m a t e   o f 
th ese  cos ts  and t he b enef its  provi d ed.

France implements a sub -measure dedicated to water protec -
tion which is tailored to specific geographical areas called ‘river  
b a s i n s ’  ( s e e   g l o s s a r y ) .   T h e   f a r m s   l o c a t e d   i n   t h e s e   a r e a s   a r e 
assessed by a consultant. This leads to the formulation of con -
crete ac tions to be implemented by the farmers, which are in -
tegrated in the monitoring arrangements. Each of the projec ts 
incl u des  a  mo nitor in g  p l an  wh ich   is  a s se sse d  by   t he   auth or i-
ties before it star ts. Specific polluting elements present in the 
w a t e r,   s u c h   a s   p h o s p h o r u s,   a re   m o n i t o re d   t h ro u g h   c h e m i c a l 
a n a l y s i s.  T h e   m o n i t o r i n g   p l a n   s p e c i f i e s   t h e   n u m b e r   a n d   f re -
q u e n c y   o f   t h e   a n a l ys e s,   t h e   r i ve r s   co n ce r n e d   a n d   t h e   b o d i e s 
re s p o n s i b l e.  T h e s e   p r o v i s i o n s   a l l o w   a   p r e c i s e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f 
th e e nviro nmental ef fec ts  of  t he  s ub - me as ure.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

29

50.  

T h e   G e r m a n   r e g i o n   o f   R h i n e l a n d - Pa l a t i n a t e   i n t r o d u c e d   t w o 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u b - m e a s u re s   i n   2 0 0 7   t h at   a i m e d   to   m a i n -
tain high nature value grassland. The expec ted outcome is ‘ori-
ented ’  to  t he   pres er vat ion  of  a  n umbe r   of  plant s  an d  spe c ie s 
o n   p a s t u r e s .  T h e   m o n i t o r i n g   o f   t h e s e   s u b - m e a s u r e s   i s   d o n e 
thro u gh a st and ardis ed data acqui si ti on  met h od ( se e B ox  3) . 

B O X 	 3

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	T H E 	 M O N I TO R I N G 	 O F 	 A N 	‘O U TCO M E - O R I E N T E D ’	
S U B - M E A S U R E

The basic requirement is the documented existence of four to eight (depending on the sub-measure) 
indicator plants among a list of predetermined species. In addition to minimum management re -
quirements, farmers are free to apply the farming practices they consider appropriate to achieve the 
required outcome. They must record the existence of the plants via specified methods. The number 
of indicator plants is counted within a corridor set along the longest diagonal over a width of two 
metres. This corridor is divided into three sectors, and all indicator plants occurring in each sector 
are recorded separately. The collection method is illustrated in the photo below.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Source: ©Landesamt für Umwelt, Wasserwirtschaft und Gewerbe-
aufsicht Rheinland-Pfalz: „PAULa - Vertragsnaturschutz Grünland - 
Kennarten“, Mainz 2008, S. 8.

30

51.  

I n   E n g l a n d ,   f o r   t h e   h i g h e r - l e v e l   s u b - m e a s u r e s   ( s e e   B o x   1 ) , 
t h e   a g r e e m e n t s   w i t h   t h e   f a r m e r s   i n c l u d e  ‘i n d i c a t o r s   o f   s u c -
c e s s’.  T h e i r   p u r p o s e   i s   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   t h e   l a n d   m a n a g e r   a n d 
t h e   p u b l i c   b o d y ’s   a d v i s o r   c a n   m o n i t o r   w h e t h e r   t h e   e nv i ro n-
m e n t a l   o u t c o m e s   h a v e   b e e n   a c h i e v e d .   T h e s e   i n d i c a t o r s   a r e 
e s t a b l i s h e d   f o r   e a c h   i n d i v i d u a l   f a r m   a n d   f o r   e a c h   m a n a g e -
ment  op t ion  incl u ded  in  the  agre eme nt.  Th e y  provi de  t ime d, 
s p e c i f i c   a n d   q u a nt i f i e d   e l e m e nt s   a g a i n s t   w h i c h   p e r fo r m a n ce 
can be improved by adjusting the management prescr iptions. 
E x a m p l e s   o f   t h e s e   i n d i c a t o r s   a r e ,   f o r   t h e   f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s 
i l l u s t r a t e d   i n   P i c t u r e   1   o f   k e e p i n g   u n t r e a t e d  ‘ h e a d l a n d s’  o r 
s ow i n g   s t r i p s   w i t h  ‘ w i l d   b i rd   s e e d   m i x ’,   t h at  ‘ t h e re   s h o u l d   b e 
be t wee n 5  % an d 50 % cover of  desirable  broad-le aved pla nts 
with at least three target arable species present ’ and that ‘ the 
p l o t s   s h o u l d   p r o v i d e   s u s t a i n e d   s e e d   s u p p l y   t h r o u g h o u t   t h e 
winter until 15 Februar y ’. The authorities assess the indicators 
of  su cces s fo r a nu mb er o f agree me nt s  eve r y  ye ar.

A R E 	 FA R M E R S 	W E L L 	 S U P P O R T E D 	T H R O U G H	
A P P R O P R I AT E 	 G U I D A N C E 	 A N D 	 CO R R E C T 	 A I D	
A M O U N T S ?

52.  

Fa r m e r s   n e e d   to   b e   aw a re   o f   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   i s s u e s   a n d   n e e d 
to understand what is expec ted of them and how to apply the 
requ irements   o f   agr i- environ ment  s ub - me asure s.  Th i s  aware -
ness and understanding can be achieved by providing suppor t 
to farmers. The Cour t examined whether and how suppor t such 
as training, advice and information was provided and whether 
its effec tiveness was assessed and enhanced by the dissemina -
tio n o f g o od p rac tice.

53.   A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a r e   v o l u n t a r y   f o r   f a r m e r s , 
w h i c h   m e a n s   t h a t   a d e q u a t e   f i n a n c i a l   s u p p o r t   m u s t   b e   p r o -
vid ed  to  ma ke t he su b - measures s uff i c ie nt ly  attra c ti ve,  w hi le 
avoiding over- compensation. The Cour t examined whether aid 
a m o u n t s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s   w e r e   c o r r e c t l y   c a l c u-
lated, justified by relevant suppor ting elements, differentiated 
a c c o r d i n g   t o   r e g i o n a l   o r   l o c a l   c o n d i t i o n s   a n d   d e p e n d e d   o n 
env iro nme nt al effec ts.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

31

54.  

55.  

FA R M E R S 	 A R E 	 G E N E R A L LY 	W E L L 	 S U P P O R T E D 	T H R O U G H	
A P P R O P R I AT E 	 G U I D A N C E 	 B U T 	 D I S S E M I N AT I O N 	 O F 	 G O O D	
P R AC T I C E S 	 C A N 	 B E 	 I M P R O V E D

I n   a l l   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   v i s i t e d,   t h e   Co u r t   fo u n d   t h a t   e x i s t-
i n g   a d m i n i s t ra t i ve   n e t wo r k s   we re   u s e d   to   p rov i d e   g u i d a n ce, 
advice and training to the beneficiar ies of the basic schemes. 
G e n e r a l   i n f o r m a t i o n   w a s   p r o v i d e d   t h r o u g h   m e e t i n g s ,   b r o -
chures and websites. More detailed information and guidance 
could also be provided through courses or technical assistance 
either by public bodies or by pr ivate consultants. All M ember 
States  visited  have made o r plan n ed  to ma ke us e  of  oth er  r u -
ral   develo p ment   meas ures   to  suppor t   th e   i mple me ntat ion   of 
a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s ,   i n   m o s t   c a s e s   t r a i n i n g   a n d 
information ac tions. In Sweden, almost all holdings benefiting 
from agri- environment payments par ticipated in such training 
ac tio ns. 

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   i n   m o s t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   m o r e   s p e c i f i c   g u i d a n c e 
w a s   p r o v i d e d   t o   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   o f   t h e   m o r e   d e m a n d i n g 
s c h e m e s .   T h i s   g e n e r a l l y   t o o k   t h e   f o r m   o f   a n   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
p l a n   p r e p a r e d   b y   a   c o n s u l t a n t   w h o,   f o l l o w i n g   a   v i s i t   t o   t h e 
farm, identified the status of its environmental features (habi-
tats,  p o nds,  vul n erabl e  s oil s,  etc ) . Thi s   pla n  prov i de s  a  gui de 
to the most appropriate management options. For instance, in 
Sweden, Brandenburg, Poland and France, nature conser vation 
plans, es tab l ished o n a case - by- c as e bas is, are  man dator y for 
s u b - m e a s u re s   d e a l i n g   w i t h   t h e   p ro t e c t i o n   o f   b i o d i ve r s i t y   i n 
sp ecif ic areas.

L i t t l e   d i s s e m i n at i o n   o f   g o o d   p ra c t i ce   a n d   fe e d b a c k 
to  f ar mers 

56.   Dis sem inat ion  of g oo d p rac t ice i s on e  way o f prov i din g gu id-
a n ce   fo r   a d m i n i s t rato r s   a n d   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a l i k e.  Th e   Co m m i s-
s i o n   i m p l e m e n t e d   s t r u c t u re s   s u c h   a s   t h e   E u r o p e a n   N e t wo r k 
for Rural Development, which aims to collec t, disseminate and 
consolidate good rural development prac tice at EU level. How-
ever, this was limited in the field of agr i- environment, as only 
a  few   co ncrete  ex amp l es   o f  g ood  prac tice   we re   id e nt if ie d  by 
the  exis ting  struc t ures.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

32

57.   A t   M e m b e r   S t a t e   l e v e l ,   t h e   a u d i t   r e v e a l e d   t h a t   t h e   a d m i n i -
s t r a t i ve   a u t h o r i t i e s   re s p o n s i b l e   r a r e l y   p r o v i d e d   fe e d b a c k   t o 
be nefic iair ies af ter  a co nt rac t  h ad  be en  s ign e d on th e re sult s 
achieved for agri- environment sub-measures. This was only the 
case for 2 % of the sample of 203 contrac ts audited. Providing 
fe e d b a c k   m a y   h e l p   i m p r o v e   t h e   f a r m e r s’  a w a r e n e s s   a n d   u n -
derstanding of the environmental effec ts of the sub -measures 
implemented, in par ticular where far mers have changed their 
prac t ice s.

W E A K N E S S E S 	 I N 	 E S TA B L I S H I N G 	 A I D 	 A M O U N T S 	 F O R 	 AG R I -
E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S

e x i s t i n g  p r o c e d u r e s   d o  n o t  p r e v e n t   m i s t A k e s  A n d  s h o r t c o m i n g s  i n 
t h e  c A l c u l A t i o n  o f  A i d  A m o u n t s

 58.  

I n   t h e i r   p ro gra m m e s,   M e m b e r   S t ate s   a re   re q u i re d   to   p rov i d e 
t h e   m e t h o d o l o g y   a n d   a g r o n o m i c   a s s u m p t i o n s   f o r   t h e i r   c a l -
cu latio ns. H owever, th ey are n ot  re qui re d to prov id e de ta ile d 
fig ures   and   aid  c alcu l atio ns,   wh i ch  a re  i n de ed   n ot   sys te mat i-
cally included in the programmes. The programmes must also 
s h o w   t h a t   a p p ro p r i a t e   e x p e r t i s e   w a s   p ro v i d e d   b y   b o d i e s   i n -
dependent from those responsible for the calculations, which 
was, however, not systematically done. A good example is the 
Pi e d m o n t   p ro gra m m e,   w h i c h   s e t s   o u t   i n   d e t a i l   t h e   e x p e r t i s e 
provide d. The  latter  inc l ud ed c he c k i ng  t he  cor re c tn e ss of t h e 
cal cu l at ions  and   con clu ding   on   wh et h er   t he   appli cable   l eg al 
requirements had been fulfilled. As par t of its programme ap -
proval procedures, the Commission checked the aid amounts. 
However, these checks were limited to the ‘plausibilit y ’ of the 
cal cu l at ions.

59.  

The above procedures did not prevent mistakes and shor tcom-
ings in the calculations of the aid amounts. Simple calculation 
m i s t a k e s   o f   u p   to   8 , 5  %   o f   t h e   a m o u n t s   we re   fo u n d   i n   A n d a -
lusia, Piedmont and Sweden. Relevant factors, such as cost sav-
in gs  res ult ing from  a lower fer tili se r  us e, we re  n ot tak e n into 
account in the calculations as required. Finally, some M ember 
States  u sed outdated f ig ures to calculate  key  el em ents  of  aid 
amounts, such as Poland which used figures from 2001–03 for 
in com e foreg o ne d es p ite signific a nt  i ncreas e s s in ce  th e n . 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

33

60.  

E x i s t i n g   p r o c e d u r e s   a l s o   d o   n o t   p r e v e n t   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
p a y m e n t s   f r o m   b e i n g   m a d e   f o r   f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s   t h a t   w e r e 
already applied by the beneficiaries. I n Andalusia, beekeepers 
are compensated under the agri- environment sub -measure for 
re co rd i n g   t h e i r   a c t i v i t i e s   i n   a   re gi s te r,   w h i c h   ove r l a p s   co n s i-
d e ra b l y   w i t h   a l re a d y   ex i s t i n g   re co rd i n g   re q u i re m e nt s.   I n   t h e 
c a s e   o f   o n e   p r o j e c t   v i s i t e d ,   a   b e e k e e p e r   h a d   r e c e i v e d   1  7 7 0 
e u ro   fo r   t h e   l at te r   re q u i re m e nt s,   w h i c h   i n   p ra c t i ce   co n s i s te d 
in  reco rding  a few  l ines  in  his regi s te r  ( se e Pic tur e  4) .

P i c t u r e 	 4 : 	 Fa r m 	 r e g i s t e r 	 o f 	 a 	 S p a n i s h 	 b e e k e e p e r 	 v i s i t e d 	 b y 	 t h e 	 C o u r t .	
R e g i s t ra t i o n 	 o f 	 t h e 	 m ove m e n t s 	 o f 	 b e e h i ve s 	 i s 	 a 	‘f a r m i n g 	 p ra c t i ce’	 co m -
p e ns ate d	by	t he	E U’s 	ag ri- environ ment	sub -measure.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

34

61.  

The most material shor tcoming was found in France for the ba-
sic sub -measure aiming to maintain grassland areas in order to 
pro te c t b io divers it y. Aro u nd 7 70  mil lion  e uro are to be  s pent 
on th is du r ing  th e 2007 –1 3 pe r iod,  of whic h 2 35  millio n e uro 
i n   E U   f u n d s   we re   a l re a d y   s p e n t   i n   2 0 0 7 – 0 9 .  Th e   c a l c u l a t i o n s 
use d  to   just ify  t he  aid   amo unts  are   mai n ly   bas ed   on  a  re duc -
tio n  o f  nit rate  fer t il is er. The  param ete r s  use d  for   t h e  c alc ula-
tio n d o no t cor resp o nd to those  ac t ua lly  appli e d i n th e a rea s 
whe re  t he  su b - meas ure  is   impleme nte d  ( se e   B ox  4 ) . This  wa s 
not  c hec ked by t he Commis sion wh en  it  approved  t he  Fren c h 
pro gram me. 

B O X 	 4

C A LC U L AT I O N 	 O F 	 A I D 	 A M O U N T S 	 D I S S O C I AT E D 	 F R O M 	 E X I S T I N G 	 FA R M I N G	
P R AC T I C E S

Around 90 % of the aid amount for the French sub-measure on maintaining grassland is based on 
the lower income resulting from a reduction of the level of fertilisation on grasslands from 180 kg 
of nitrate per hectare to 125 kg.

Estimates of data from a statistical source used by the national authorities in the calculations show 
that the levels of fertilisation actually employed are, on average, around 65 kg of nitrate per hectare 
and therefore well below the threshhold of 125 kg per hectare. This was also confirmed by the three 
farmers visited by the Court, two of whom used an average of 15 kg of nitrate per hectare and one 
used 60 kg at the most. This shows that farmers are being compensated for practices that they were 
already implementing.

The French authorities explain that the threshhold of 125 kg is a reference practice considered fa-
vourable for the environment even though it exceeds the levels of fertilisation actually employed 
by the farmers.

These explanations are not in line with the view expressed in a Commission document 18 presented 
to the Member States, which drew attention to the risk of compensating ‘farmers for whom (parts of ) 
the obligations are normal practice or to base the calculations on figures which are not representative 
for a specific region. This risk becomes in particular evident if an aid is calculated as (e.g. nationwide) 
average without taking into account different agronomic and cost structures in the regions’.

18  Rural Development Committee, Working Document RD10/07/2006-final, Agri-environment commitments and their verifiability.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

35

62.  

The value of the parameters used to calculate the aid amounts 
chang e s  over  time  w ith  t he  result  t h at  cer tai n  sub -me as ures, 
l i k e   t h e   o n e s   a i m i n g   t o   d i ve r s i f y   c ro p   ro t a t i o n ,   m ay   b e c o m e 
in su ffic ient l y attrac tive to  p otenti al be ne f ici ar i es  in  f in an cial 
t e r m s.  T h i s   s i t u a t i o n   o c c u r r e d   fo r   i n s t a n c e   i n   Fr a n c e,   w h e r e 
a   s u b - m e a s u r e   h a d   t o   b e   c l o s e d   f o r   n e w   b e n e f i c i a i r e s   d u r -
i n g   2 0 0 8   d u e   t o   a   l a c k   o f   i n t e r e s t .   H o w e v e r,   m o s t   M e m b e r 
States   kep t   a id  amo u nt s  stable  ove r   th e  d urat ion   of   th e  con -
t r a c t   t o   p r o v i d e   s o m e   s e c u r i t y   t o   f a r m e r s   a n d   b e c a u s e   t h e 
cost of adapting aid amounts to changing circumstances could 
prove higher than the benefit farmers would derive from such 
change. For the 203 contrac ts reviewed by the Cour t, a system 
of  revis ion o f p r ices existed in  1 0  % of t he cases.

t h e  a i d  a m o u n t s  a r e  n o t  d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  e n o u g h  a c c o r d i n g  t o 
r e g i o n a L   o r  L o c a L  s i t e  c o n d i t i o n s

63.   Agr i- environment sub -measures can be implemented in areas 
with different charac teristics (soil qualit y, rainfall, geography : 
p l a i n s,   m o u nt a i n s,   e tc )   w h i c h   a f fe c t   t h e   co s t s   a n d   i n co m e   o f 
t h e   f a r m s.   A r t i c l e   5 3   o f   R e g u l at i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 9 7 4 / 2 0 0 6   s t ate s 
t h a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h a l l   e n s u r e   t h a t   f i n a n c i a l   s u p p o r t   f o r 
agr i- enviro nment   su b - measures  i s   di ffe re nti ate d  to  tak e   i nto 
a cco u nt   re gi o n a l   o r   l o c a l   s i te   co n d i t i o n s   a n d   a c t u a l   l a n d   u s e 
as  ap p rop r iate.

64.   Wh en ins uffic ientl y differe ntiate d ave rag e cost s a n d in com e s 
are used to calculate aid amounts for agr i- environment, some 
f a r m s   a re   o ve rc o m p e n s a t e d,   l e a d i n g   t o   a n   i n e f f i c i e n t   u s e   o f 
p u b l i c   f u n d s,   a n d   s o m e   a re   u n d e r c o m p e n s a t e d ,   r i s k i n g   t h a t 
the par ticipation rate may be too low to have an effec t. As an 
illustration, 2006 data shows that yields in olive produc tion in 
Andalusia varied between 0,48 tonnes/hectare in non-irrigated 
areas and 5,46 tonnes/hec tare in irrigated areas. Despite these 
differences, an average of 3,5 tonnes/hec tare was used for the 
aid calculation, without differentiating bet ween irrigated and 
non -ir r ig ated areas.   

65.  

The Cour t identified cases where differentation would provide 
possible benefits to farmers but with a possible ex tra adminis-
trat ive co st in  four  M em ber  State s w ith  n at ion al program me s 
(France, Po la nd, H ungar y  and Swed en ).   

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

36

66.  

67.  

68.  

T h e   Fre n c h   a u t h o r i t i e s   d e c i d e d   t o   u s e   n a t i o n a l   a ve r a g e s   fo r 
t h e   b a s i c   s u b - m e a s u re   d e s c r i b e d   i n   B ox   4 ,   d e s p i t e   t h e   n e e d 
to differentiate aid amounts according to plain, mountain and 
l e s s - f avo u re d   a re a s.   I f   t h e   Fre n c h   a i d   a m o u n t s   h a d   b e e n   d i f -
ferentiated, the amounts in the plains and less favoured areas 
could have been respec tively 33  % and 20 % lower, represent-
in g  aro und   8  mil l io n  euro   o f  EU  f un ds   in   2 0 0 9 .   I n   Polan d,  t h e 
same  amo unt  fo r  inco me forego n e wa s us ed for  more  th an  1 0 
different sub -meas ures, de spite  th e  ne e d to di ffe re nt iate  e. g. 
b e t w e e n   a r a b l e   c r o p s   a n d   g r a s s l a n d .   T h e   a i d   a m o u n t s   w e r e 
a l s o   n o t   d i f fe r e n t i a t e d   fo r   t h e   v a r i o u s   r e g i o n s   d e s p i t e   t h e i r 
ve r y differe nt  c harac ter istic s.

p A r t i c i p A t i o n  r A t e   i n  b A s i c  m e A s u r e s	

Fo r   b a s i c   s u b - m e a s u r e s ,   f a r m e r   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   m u s t   b e   h i g h 
e n o u g h   t o   p r o v i d e   e f f e c t s   i n   a   g i v e n   a r e a .   H o w e v e r,   m o s t 
M ember States do not assess the minimum par ticipation level 
needed to ensure that sub -measures provide the expec ted en-
vironmental effects and whether the aid amounts are adequate 
to  reach t his minimu m l evel. 

I n  Po la nd, three  b as ic su b -m eas ure s re pre se nt in g  7 5  % of th e 
expenditure in 2008 were implemented on less than 1 % of the 
ut ilis ed agr icu l tu ral  areas  of the regi on s v is i te d by  t he  Cour t. 
No data  is availab l e to demo n strate  t hat  s uch  cove rage  is  i m-
por tant enough to result in environmental effec ts. Despite the 
l ow   c o ve r a g e,   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t s   fo r   t h e s e   s u b - m e a s u re s   we re 
kept significantly below (between 16  % and 44 %) the amounts 
c a l c u l a te d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a d d i t i o n a l   co s t s   a n d   i n co m e   fo re -
go ne.

69.  

I n   o t h e r   c a s e s,   a i d   a m o u n t s   we r e   i n c r e a s e d   d e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t 
t h a t   t h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   r a t e   a l re a d y   f u l f i l l e d   t h e   p l a n n e d   t a r -
gets. This led to situations such as in Sweden, which increased 
threefold the aid amount of one sub -measure despite the fac t 
that  th e par tic ipation target h ad be e n rea c he d. 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

37

19  See for instance: (1) 
The evaluation study of 

November 2004, prepared 

as part of the Commission’s 

Impact Assessment of Rural 

Development programmes 

in view of post-2006 rural 

development policy (which 

identified the improvement of 

targeting of agri-environment 

measures as one of the key 

themes in the improvement 

of the delivery of rural 

development policy in the 

Member Sates and regions) 

and (2) The research project on 

‘Integrated Tools to design and 

implement Agro Environmental 

Schemes’, which was funded 

between 2004–06 under the 

sixth EU framework programme 

(which identified targeting 

as a key criterion for the 

environmental performance of 

agri-environment measures).

20  Thematic working Group 3, 
Public goods and public 

intervention, final report, 

December 2010.

D O E S 	T H E 	 M A N AG E M E N T 	 O F 	 AG R I -
E N V I R O N M E N T 	 P O L I C Y 	TA K E 	 ACCO U N T 	 O F	
S P E C I F I C 	 E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 N E E D S ?	 	

70.   Ar ticle 39(1) of Regulation (EC ) No 1698/2005 states that Mem-
ber States should make suppor t available for agri- environment 
payments throughout their territories in accordance with their 
s p e c i f i c   n e e d s .   A l l   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   a u d i t e d 
show that the environmental pressures are more acute in some 
regio ns t han in o thers.

71.  

The Cour t reviewed to what extent agri-environmental aid takes 
a c c o u n t   o f   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   n e e d s ,   w h e t h e r   a v a i l a b l e   m a n a -
g e m e n t   t o o l s   s u c h   a s   g e o g r a p h i c a l   t a r g e t i n g   a n d   s e l e c t i o n  
w e r e   u s e d   a n d   a l s o   w h e t h e r   m a n a g e m e n t   w a s   i n n o v a t i v e 
an d  evide nce -b ased.  Final l y,   t he  Cour t  re vi ewed   w he th er   t he 
mana gement of funds was focused on delivering environmen-
tal  e ffec t s.

72.  

73.  

LIM IT ED	US E	O F	TARGE T IN G	AND	SE L EC TI ON	PROC EDURE S

a s s e s s m e n t s  o f  w h a t  w o u L d  b e  t h e  r i g h t  L e v e L  o f  g e o g r a p h i c a L 
t a r g e t i n g  a r e  n o t  a v a i L a b L e

E n s u r i n g   t h a t   f u n d s   a r e   s p e n t   a c c o r d i n g   t o   r e g i o n a l   n e e d s 
and priorities is of key impor tance for enhancing the environ-
mental effec ts of agri- environment sub -measures. This can be 
achieved through targeting funds to geographical areas, types 
of farms or farming prac tices by setting appropriate eligibility 
cr iter ia.

Targeting of agri- environment payments has been a permanent 
issu e  over  t he  l ast   decad e.  I n  its   spe c ia l  re por t  f rom   2 0 0 0   on 
‘G re e n i n g   t h e   C A P ’,   t h e   Co u r t   c r i t i c i s e d   t h e   l a c k   o f   t a rg e t i n g 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s c h e m e s   t o   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r i o r i t i e s   ( s e e 
 A n n e x   I   f o r   f u r t h e r   d e t a i l s ) .   S i n c e   t h e n ,   s e v e r a l   e v a l u a t i o n s 
and studies  19 identified a need for improved targeting of agri-
environment expenditure to identified needs. A recent repor t 
f ro m   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   N e t wo r k   fo r   R u r a l   D e ve l o p m e n t   2 0  i d e n t i -
fied targeting as one of the nine key criteria for the successful 
d e l i ve r y   o f   o u t c o m e s.   I n   i t s   re c e n t   c o m m u n i c a t i o n  ‘ T h e   C A P 
towards 2020’, the Commission advocates improved targeting 
of  the  me asure s under t he rural d eve lopme nt  poli c y.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

38

21  This is in particular the case 
in Austria, where the agri-

environment sub-measures were 

designed above all to maintain 

the environmental situation 

all over the country, which is 

assessed as reasonably positive 

in the rural development 

programme. Austria therefore 

applies a preventive and 

horizontal approach where 

around 70 % of farmers 

participate in agri-environment 

sub-measures, covering 93,5 % of 

all farmland.

74.   A   r e l e v a n t   t a r g e t i n g   a p p r o a c h   c a n   c h a n n e l   e x p e n d i t u r e   t o 
 a r e a s   w h e r e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r o b l e m s   a r e   l o c a t e d .   T h i s   c a n , 
for instance, be done by setting eligibilit y cr iter ia which limit 
expenditure to precisely defined areas where changes in farm-
ing prac tices are necessar y or where existing environmentally 
f r i e n d l y   f a r m i n g   p ra c t i ce s   wo u l d   n o t   b e   m a i n t a i n e d   w i t h o u t 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t a l   s u p p o r t .   T h i s   i s   i l l u s t r a t e d   i n   F i g u r e s   3 
to   5 ,   w h i c h   s h ow   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   f u n d s   w i t h   a n d   w i t h o u t 
g e o g r a p h i c a l   t a rg e t i n g.   Lo c a l   n e e d s   a re   b e t t e r   a d d re s s e d   i n 
Figure 5 . The same amount of money is used more effec tively 
i n   F i g u r e   5   a s   c o m p a r e d   t o   F i g u r e   4 ,   w h e r e   f u n d s   a r e   a l s o 
sp ent  in areas w ithou t environm ent al probl em s.

75.   Member States can implement agri- environment sub -measures 
o ve r   a   w i d e   a re a   a n d / o r   t a rg e t   t h e m   t o   l o c a l   c i rc u m s t a n c e s, 
according to the environmental needs identified. O verall, the 
a u d i t   e s t a b l i s h e d   t h at   m o s t   o f   t h e   ex p e n d i t u re   wa s   m a d e   o n 
‘ h o r i zo nt a l ’  s u b - m e a s u re s   w h i c h   we re   i m p l e m e nte d   ove r   t h e 
whole area of the rural development programme (see Table 1). 
Par t of this expenditure is for maintaining existing favourable 
farming practices  21. This is in line with one of the objectives of 
the current legal framework (see paragraph 3). Currently there 
is no requirement to target expenditure to specific areas. How-
ever, geographical targeting can also be an effec tive tool, e.g. 
t o   p r i o r i t i s e   a re a s   w h e re   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h ave   d e m o n s t r a t e d 
that  co nvers ion to  a l es s  environ me ntal  f r i e nd ly  l an d us e wi ll 
occ ur w ith out  a gr i- enviro nment  suppor t.

TA B L E 	 1

AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 E X P E N D I T U R E 	 I M P L E M E N T E D 	 O N 	T H E 	W H O L E 	 A R E A 	 O F	
T H E 	 P R O G R A M M E

Rural development programme
Member State/Region

% of expenditure implemented on the whole area  
of the programme

AT	—	Austria

DE	—	Brandenburg	and	Berlin

ES	—	Andalusia

FR	—	France

HU	—	Hungary

IT	—	Piedmont

PL	—	Poland

SE	—	Sweden

90 %

90 %

50 %

90 %

80	%	1

85 %

100	%	2

60 %

1		 Estimation	based	on	the	areas	under	‘zonal’	sub-measures.
2		 A	budget	of	around	20	%	is	planned	for	targeted	sub-measures	but	is	not	yet	implemented.

Source: European Court of Auditors, estimation of expenditure used for sub-measures without geographical 
limitation in 2009/2010.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

39

F I G U R E 	 3

C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S 	 O F 	T H E 	 A R E A

Area with a risk 
of soil erosion

Area where threats on maintenance of 
existing farming practices is demonstrated

Area where habitats
are threatened

F I G U R E 	 4

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

Agri-environment support available throughout 
the whole territory without taking into account 
specific needs

F I G U R E 	 5

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

Area with a risk 
of soil erosion

No agri-environment support in areas 
where no threat is demonstrated, except 
for funds targeted to specific farms or 
practices (e.g. organic farming)

Agri-environment support in areas where 
threats on maintenance of existing farming 
practices is demonstrated

Agri-environment support in areas where 
habitats are threatened

Source: Adapted from the work of Dr Pierre Dupraz, INRA, France, in particular ‘Specific targeted research project 
n°SSPE-CT-2003-502070 Integrated Tools to design and implement Agro Environmental Schemes’.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

40

76.  

77.  

The Cour t found also some sub -measures which were targeted 
t o   s p e c i f i c   l o c a l   n e e d s .  Tw o   s u c c e s s f u l   e x a m p l e s   o f   t h i s   a r e 
des cr ibe d in B ox   5.

Targ et ing,  lik e  cer tain  o f  t he   ma nag em e nt   prac ti ce s  o ut lin ed 
in the following paragraphs, imposes additional administrative 
co s t s.   I t   wo u l d   b e   re a s o n a b l e   a n d   d e s i r a b l e   fo r   t h e   Co m m i s-
s i o n   t o   t a k e   c o s t - b e n e f i t   c o n s i d e r a t i o n s   i n t o   a c c o u n t   w h e n 
proposing expenditure schemes, and for M ember States to do 
so  wh en deciding  how  to impleme nt s ch em es.

78.  

Th e   Co u r t ’s   a u d i t   h owe ve r   i n d i c ate d   t h at   M e m b e r   S t ate s   a u -
dited had not considered the desirable degree of targeting on 
the  b asis of  an  anal ysis o f th e cost s  and  be ne f it s i nvolved.

B O X 	 5

S U CC E S S F U L 	 E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 G E O G R A P H I C A L 	TA R G E T I N G

France targets agri-environment sub-measures at Natura 2000 areas or at areas affected by specific 
problems, mainly water pollution but also soil erosion. Areas where environmental problems exist are 
precisely delimited, and only those areas are eligible for the sub-measures concerned. Each project 
includes land management activities which are determined at the level of agricultural parcels among 
various existing options. Participation is still low in the sub-measures targeted at water pollution 
in intensive regions because they require changes in farming practices, in particular in the use of 
plant protection products.

Hungary uses geographical targeting for 12 of the 22 sub-measures included in the programme. This 
is done by designing specific sub-measures for and allocating 25 % of the agri-environment budget 
to the following five types of area:

 ο high nature value areas;

 ο areas affected by erosion on slopes; 

 ο sand and loess soils exposed to wind erosion;

 ο protection zones of vulnerable water resources and flood areas;

 ο wetlands.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

79.  

80.  

81.  

41

Th e   Po l i s h   p ro gra m m e,   fo r   i n s t a n ce,   s t ate s   t h a t   t h e   e nv i ro n -
m e n t a l   s i t u a t i o n   f o r   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   h i g h   l i v e s t o c k   d e n s i t i e s 
a f f e c t i n g   w a t e r   q u a l i t y,   t h e   s e n s i t i v i t y   o f   d i f fe r e n t   t y p e s   o f 
s o i l   t o   e r o s i o n ,   e t c   a r e   w o r s e   i n   s o m e   r e g i o n s   t h a n   i n   o t h -
e r s .   I n s t e a d   o f   a   z o n a l   a p p r o a c h   a p p l i e d   d u r i n g   t h e   p e r i o d  
2 0 0 4 – 0 6 ,   P o l a n d   h a s   i m p l e m e n t e d   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b -
m e a s u re s   s o   f a r   n a t i o nw i d e.  T h e   a b a n d o n m e n t   o f   t h e   p re v i -
o u s   a p p r o a c h   w a s   n o t   s u p p o r t e d   b y   a   c o s t - b e n e f i t   a n a l y s i s. 
I n Austr ia, only four out of the 28 sub -measures, representing 
around 10 % of the expenditure, are targeted to specific areas.

22  Articles 39(4) and 71(2).

A s  b u d g e t  w A s  s u f f i c i e n t,  n o  s p e c i f i c  s e l e c t i o n  c r i t e r i A  w e r e 
A p p l i e d

S e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   c a n   e n s u r e   t h a t   t h o s e   p r o j e c t s   s e -
l e c t e d   p r o v i d e   t h e   b e s t   v a l u e   f o r   m o n e y.   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )  
N o   1 6 9 8 / 2 0 0 5   s p e c i f i e s   t h a t   e x p e n d i t u re   m u s t   b e   i n   a c c o rd-
an ce  wit h  the  s elec tion  c r iter ia  fi xed   by   th e   compe te nt   body 
a n d   t h a t ,   w h e r e   a p p r o p r i a t e ,   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   m a y   b e   s e l e c t e d 
on t he bas is o f cal l s fo r ten der, apply in g  cr ite r i a of econ om ic 
and environmental efficienc y  22. The Commission wrote to the 
M e mb er  St ate s  in  2 00 8,   rem indin g   th em   of   th e   applic abl e  le -
g a l   p r o v i s i o n s   a n d   i n s i s t i n g   o n   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   p u r p o s e   o f 
sel ec tio n c r iter ia was to ‘al l ow s pen di n g t h e budg e t on t h ose 
operations and projects that will contribute most to the objec-
t i ve s   o f   t h e   m e a s u re’.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s ys te m a t i c a l l y   c h e c k s 
that   sel ec t ion  c r iter ia  are  in deed   es tabl is he d  by   th e   M em ber 
States  for t he  a gr i- environment  fi el d.

The Cour t found some cases where selec tion procedures were 
used to exclude contrac ts because they did not provide suffi-
cient environmental value. France for instance uses a relevant 
pro cedu re  to   se l ec t  th e  p ro jec ts   im ple me nte d  un de r  ‘ ter r ito -
r i a l i s e d ’  s u b - m e a s u re s,   fo r   w h i c h   a   s p e c i f i c   co m m i t te e   r a n k s 
the projec ts according to environmental cr iter ia such as their 
r e l e v a n c e   a n d   l o c a l i s a t i o n .   H o w e v e r,   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s 
we re onl y used  in a ver y  l im ited n um ber  of  c as es.  I n  prac t ice, 
more than 90 % of the agri- environment budget is implement-
e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   e l i g i b i l i t y   c r i t e r i a   o n l y.   N o n e   o f   t h e   2 0 3 
contrac t s  re vie wed  by  t he  Cour t  wa s  s ele c ted   on   t he   ba si s  of 
a cal l  for te nde r.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

42

82.   A l l   f a r m e r s   s i g n i n g   u p   t o   a   c e r t a i n   s c h e m e   h ave   t o   f u l f i l   t h e 
same eligibility criteria and requirements, which are supposed 
( b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s )   t o   p r o v i d e   t h e 
same environmental benefits. Provided that budgets are suffi -
cient, the funds are used without assessing the environmental 
v a l u e   o f   t h e   v a r i o u s   a p p l i c a t i o n s .   Fo r   m o s t   o f   t h e   t i m e ,   t h e 
budget is sufficient, as the scarcit y of funds only occurs when 
t h e   b u d g e t   fo r   a l l   a x i s   2   m e a s u re s   i s   e x h a u s te d.   O n l y   a t   t h i s 
stage do selec tion criteria become mandator y. Thus, although 
five M ember States established selec tion criteria  23, they were 
not applied because budget resources were sufficient to date.

23  Of the eight Member States 
audited, Poland did not establish 

any selection procedures, 

as was also pointed out by 

the Commission. Austria and 

Sweden established certain 

selective elements but only for 

small parts of the budget (7,5 % 

of the expenditure for Austria 

and 12,5 % for Sweden).

83.  

S e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   c a n   a l s o   b e   a p p l i e d   t o   t a r g e t s ,   e . g .   t h e 
n u m b e r   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s .   I n   s i x   o f   t h e   e i g h t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
audited, the Cour t found sub -measures where the relevant fi -
gure for applications exceeded the targets planned, but where 
never theless all applications were funded. M ember States ac -
cepted fur ther applications because their targets were not set 
at a level where environmental problems were sufficiently ad-
dressed. I t would be more efficient not to accept fur ther appli-
cations where targets representing environmental levels have 
b e e n   a c h i e ve d,   t h u s   re l e a s i n g   re m a i n i n g   f i n a n c i a l   re s o u rc e s 
for t he a chievem ent  o f t he target s  of oth e r  agr i- e nv iron me nt 
sub -meas ures.   

A L LO C AT I O N 	 O F 	 F U N D S 	 D O E S 	 N OT 	 O P T I M I S E 	VA LU E 	 F O R	
M O N E Y

m a n a g e m e n t  n o t  s u f f i c i e n t L y   i n n o v a t i v e   a n d  e v i d e n c e - b a s e d

84.  

T h e re   a re   a   n u m b e r   o f   e l e m e n t s   w h i c h   c o u l d   b e   u s e d   i n   t h e 
m a n a g e m e n t   o f   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   t o   i n c r e a s e 
v a l u e   fo r   m o n e y.  T h i s   s e c t i o n   c o ve r s,   i n   a d d i t i o n   t o   t h e   e l e -
ments mentioned earlier in this repor t: differentiated EU con -
tr ib ut io ns, co l le c tive co ntrac ts an d  a soun d  ev id en ce  bas is.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

24  Article 70 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005 specifies for 

agri-environment a minimum 

EU contribution of 20 % of public 

expenditure, and maximum ones 

of 80 % in convergence regions 

and 55 % in other regions. The 

contribution is increased to 

85 % for programmes of the 

outermost regions and the 

smaller Aegean Islands.

25  Special Report No 5/2010: 
Implementation of the Leader 

approach for rural development, 

paragraphs 84 and 85.

43

85.  

T h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n   r a t e   fo r   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   i s   s e t   a t   t h e 
l e v e l   o f  ‘a x e s ’  ( g r o u p s   o f   c o h e r e n t   m e a s u r e s ) ,   a n d   d e p e n d s 
pr incipally on whether expenditure is implemented in the re -
g i o n s   e l i g i b l e   u n d e r   t h e   C o n v e r g e n c e   O b j e c t i v e   o r   i n   o t h e r 
r e g i o n s   2 4.  T h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n   fo r   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   i s   t h u s 
the same as for many other rural development measures, with 
the following exception. Since 2009, the EU contr ibution may 
( w i t h i n   ce r t a i n   l i m i t s )   b e   i n c re a s e d   by   1 0  %   fo r   co nve rg e n ce 
a n d   b y   2 0  %   fo r   n o n - c o nve rg e n c e   re g i o n s   fo r   o p e r a t i o n s   re -
lated to climate change, water management and biodiversit y. 
E xce p t   fo r   t h i s   d i f fe re n t i a t i o n ,   t h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n   d o e s   n o t 
d e p e n d   o n   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   o r   o t h e r   f a c t o r s   re l e v a n t   fo r   a g r i -
e nv i ro n m e n t ,   s u c h   a s   i m p rove d   t a rg e t i n g   o r   b e t t e r   fo c u s i n g 
on  EU p r ior ities. 

86.   Un der  the agr i- environ ment polic y, sub -measure s are offered 
t o   f a r m e r s   w h o   t a k e ,   o n   a n   i n d i v i d u a l   b a s i s ,   a   d e c i s i o n   o n 
w h e t h e r   o r   n o t   to   s i gn   a   co n t ra c t .   I n   ce r t a i n   c a s e s   i t   m ay   b e 
necessar y to have in a par ticular geographical area a minimum 
n u m b e r   o f   f a r m e r s   s i g n i n g   a   c o n t r a c t .   S u c h   c a s e s   c a n   b e   t o 
m a i nt a i n / i m p rove   a   t y p i c a l   l o c a l   l a n d s c a p e,   to   re d u ce   p o l l u -
tion in a river catchment area, or protec ting cer tain species or 
h a b i t at s.   E x p e n d i t u re   fo r   a   fe w   i n d i v i d u a l   co n t ra c t s   m ay   n o t 
b e   e f fe c t i v e   i n   s u c h   c a s e s   ( s e e   a l s o   p a r a g r a p h   6 7 ) .   O n e   w a y 
t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   a   s u f f i c i e n t l y   l a r g e   g r o u p   o f   f a r m e r s   d e l i v e r s 
t h e   n e c e s s a r y   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   i s   t h r o u g h   c o l l e c t i v e 
app ro aches. 

87.  

88.  

T h e   a u d i t   f o u n d ,   h o w e v e r,   t h a t   s u c h   a p p r o a c h e s   a r e   h a r d l y 
used. Only one out of the 203 agr i- environment contrac ts au-
dited concerned a collec tive contrac t. The Leader approach to 
rural development can also be used to implement a collec tive 
app ro ach.  H owe ver,   a  rece nt  aud it  by   th e   Cour t   25  found  t hat 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   g e n e r a l l y   r e s t r i c t e d   t h e   s c o p e   o f   L e a d e r,   i n 
so me c ases  e ve n excl udin g agr i- env ironm ent.

I n order to k now whether agri- environment sub -measures are 
e f f e c t i v e ,   a   c l e a r   a n d   d e m o n s t r a t e d   c a u s a l   r e l a t i o n s h i p   b e -
t we e n   t h e   a gr i c u l t u ra l   p ra c t i ce s   a n d   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   o u t -
com es  is  req uired. This  c an  be  don e  by   usi ng   tes t   pl ots,   c a se 
studies, quantified impac t model, sur veys, etc. Such ‘hard’ evi -
dence is especially relevant for more demanding sub -measures 
a s   t h e i r   e f fe c t s   d e p e n d   o n   t h e   s p e c i f i c   re q u i re m e n t s   fo r   t h e 
s u b - m e a s u re s   a n d   o n   t h e   c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s   o f   t h e   a r e a s   w h e r e 
the y are impl em ented.     

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

44

26  Primdahl, et al., Current 
use of impact models for agri-

environment schemes  

and potential for improvements 

of policy design and  

assessment, Journal of 

Environmental Management 

(2010), doi:10.1016/ 

j.jenvman.2009.12.012.

27  The November 2005 
evaluation of the agri-

environment measures reviewed 

a total of 288 scientific studies 

of which a sample of around 30 

studies were more specifically 

dedicated to organic farming. 

The evaluation concluded 

that organic farming achieved 

positive effects on biodiversity 

(increase in vegetal, animal, 

habitats diversity) and water 

and air pollution through 

a reduction in inputs. The 

Community strategic guidelines 

(see glossary) identified organic 

farming as a holistic approach 

to sustainable agriculture, which 

improves the environment 

and the countryside, and 

recommended that its 

contribution to environmental 

and animal welfare objectives 

should be consolidated and 

strengthened.

Ant icip ate d  enviro nmental  benef its  are  not  demon-
s trated  fo r 24 % o f  t he  contrac ts

89.   However, the audit found that specific quantified evidence was 
u s e d   o n l y   i n   a   m i n o r i t y   o f   c a s e s   t o   d e s i g n   a n d   m a n a g e   a g r i -
e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s .   Fo r   t h e   2 0 3   c o n t r a c t s   r e v i e w e d 
b y   t h e   C o u r t ,   m e t h o d s   s u c h   a s   i n q u i r i e s   w i t h   b e n e f i c i a r i e s , 
mo del s /simul at i on s or  c ase studi es  were us ed  re spe c ti vely  i n 
only 11 %, 14 % and 30 % of the cases. For 24 % of the contracts 
r e v i e w e d ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   r e p o r t e d   t h a t   t h e   c a u s a l   r e l a t i o n-
ship  b et we en t he far ming prac t ice s  an d th e  ant ic i pated  e nv i-
ronm ental  b ene fits were no t de mon s trated.  Th e se  res ul ts  are 
consistent with recent research  26 which concluded that ‘M ore 
t h a n   h a l f   o f   t h e   [ a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s ]   s u r v e y e d 
we re bas ed o n ‘common  s en se’ i mpac t  mod els,  an d t hus  we re 
based on general beliefs about how agr icultural prac tices are 
linked to environmental changes, rather than on documented 
evide nce.’

90.  

For  so me  s ub -m eas ures,   the  Cou r t  did   fi nd  ev i de nce   t hat  t h e 
f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s   w e r e   e f fe c t i ve   i n   a c h i e v i n g   t h e i r   e nv i r o n -
mental benefits. This is par ticular ly the case for organic far m -
in g,  fo r  w hich  t he  effec ts  are  we ll  d oc um ented   27. Th is  is  also 
the case for outcome -based sub -measures (see paragraph 27), 
f o r   w h i c h   t h e   e x p e c t e d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   a r e   d i r e c t l y 
link ed  to t he far min g p rac t ices i mple me nte d.

fA i l u r e s  t o  f o c u s  p A y m e n t s  o n  s p e c i f i c  e n v i r o n m e n t A l  p r o b l e m s   

91.   A rational way to implement agri- environment polic y is, on the 
b a s i s   o f   c l e a r l y   i d e nt i f i e d   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p ro b l e m s,   to   d e te r-
mine the required targets for impac ts and par ticipation levels 
and on this basis to determine the necessar y financial resourc-
es. Identifying environmental problems means that there must 
b e   a n   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   t h re at   j u s t i f y i n g   w hy   f a r m i n g   p ra c t i ce s 
m u s t   b e   m a i n t a i n e d   o r   c h a n g e d .   Fa i l u r e   t o   a p p l y   t h i s   l o g i c 
lea ds to an  insu ffic ient  foc u s on  envi ron me nt al e ffe c ts.  Th us, 
t h e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h a t   i n   3 9  %   o f   t h e   2 0 3   c o n t r a c t s   r e v i e w e d , 
t h e r e   w e r e   n o   s p e c i f i c   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   i n   t h e   a r e a 
where the contrac t was implemented, or such problems could 
not  b e ide nt ifie d  by t he M embe r  State s,  as  s how n  in Ta bl e 2.   

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

45

92.   Budg et s fo r agr i- enviro nment  are  base d  on  pas t  upt ak e  rate s 
and the targets set do not depend on environmental effec ts to 
be achieved, but on historical spending figures. Member States 
use data on par ticipation levels for sub -measures for the day-
t o - d a y   m a n a g e m e n t   b u t   c a n n o t   a n a l y s e   w h e t h e r   p a r t i c i p a -
t i o n   i s   a d e q u a t e   t o   p r o d u c e   t h e   a n t i c i p a t e d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
e f fe c t s.   Pa r t i c i p a t i o n   i s   vo l u n t a r y   fo r   f a r m e r s,   m e a n i n g   t h a t 
s u b - m e a s u re s   w i t h   l e s s   d e m a n d i n g   re q u i re m e n t s   i n   re l a t i o n 
t o   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t s   a re   e a s i e r   t o   i m p l e m e n t   t h a n   t h o s e   w i t h 
higher requirements. Two examples of this were Piedmont and 
Fran ce,  w hic h  us ed  res p ec t ively   aroun d  7 5 %  and  8 5 %  of  t he 
expenditure for a single basic sub -measure, without sufficient 
a n a l y s i s   o r   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   f o r   t h i s   i n   t h e i r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
pro gram mes.

TA B L E 	 2

M A I N 	 E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 P R O B L E M ( S ) 	 E X I S T I N G 	W I T H I N 	 A 	 R A N G E 	 O F	 	
10 	 K I LO M E T R E S 	 A R O U N D 	T H E 	 FA R M 	 F O R 	 A 	 S A M P L E 	 O F 	203	 CO N T R AC T S

Environmental problem

% of contracts 1

There	are	no	specific	environmental	problems	in	the	area	within	a	range	of	10	kilometres	around	
the	farm	which	holds	the	contract	or	it	is	not	possible	to	identify	problems

Water	pollution	caused	by	farming

Marginalisation	and	abandonment	of	land

Threats	to	exceptional	plant	biodiversity	(in	areas	of	particular	environmental	importance	—	high	
nature	value	zones)

Soil	degradation	(caused	by	wind	erosion,	loss	of	organic	matter,	overexploitation,		
compaction,	etc.)

Threats	to	animal	populations	in	areas	with	normal	biodiversity

Threats	to	exceptional	animal	biodiversity	(in	areas	of	particular	environmental	importance	—	
high	nature	value	zones)

Threats	to	plant	communities	in	areas	with	normal	biodiversity

Degradation	of	landscape

Other

1		 There	can	be	more	than	one	problem	in	the	area	where	the	contract	is	implemented.

39 %

27 %

22 %

21 %

18 %

18 %

18	%

18 %

10	%

11 %

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

46

93.  

94.  

In all the Member States audited, the agri- environment budget 
was par t of a single seven-year budget for all axis 2 measures. 
Th i s   i m p rove s   f l ex i b i l i t y   i n   t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   t h e   ava i l a b l e 
financ ial  reso u rces,  b ut l eads to a  s it uati on wh ere th ere is  n o 
analysis of what would be the appropr iate funding to address 
env iro nme nt al n eeds.

Th e Co ur t  analysed  w hether M e mber  St ate s could j us ti f y t hat 
t h e   m o n e y   s p e n t   o n   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   w a s   i n   l i n e 
with the main environmental pressures identified. This was in-
deed the case for t wo out of the eight M ember States audited 
(Aus tr ia and Sweden) . H owever,  for  th e oth e r  M e mbe r  State s, 
i t   w a s   n o t ,   e i t h e r   b e c a u s e   t h e   r e l e v a n t   i n fo r m a t i o n   w a s   n o t 
avail ab l e o r n ot  p rovided  (Polan d,  H un g ar y  an d  Pie dmont)  or 
be cau se  exp enditu re  was  not  in   li ne   wi th   t he   ma in   pre ss ures 
i d e n t i f i e d   ( A n d a l u s i a ,   B e r l i n   a n d   B r a n d e n b u r g,   Fr a n c e ) .  T h e 
latter c ase is des cr ib ed in  B ox  6.

B O X 	 6

A L LO C AT I O N 	 O F 	 F U N D S 	 F O R 	 AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T 	 PAYM E N T S 	 I S 	 N OT 	 I N 	 L I N E	
W I T H 	 E N V I R O N M E N TA L 	 C H A L L E N G E S

Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that each rural development programme must justify the various 
types of agri-environment payment in relation to the environmental needs and priorities identified 
in the programme. The French programme establishes three main environmental challenges: bio-
diversity, water (quality and quantity) and climate change. The planned agri-environment budget 
for biodiversity amounts to around 1 billion euro, which represents around three times the agri-
environment budget set aside for water quality. Although the French authorities consider that the 
most material sub-measure in the programme dealing with preservation of extensive pastures also 
prevents climate changes through the storage of carbon, no agri-environment expenditure is re-
ported as tackling climate change. The programme does not justify the allocation of funds to the 
main challenges identified.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

47

95.   Ag r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   i s   a   c o m p l e x   p o l i c y   i n s t r u m e n t :   i t   a i m s   t o 
a d d r e s s   a   w i d e   r a n g e   o f   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   i s s u e s   ( b i o d i v e r s i t y, 
s o i l ,   w a t e r,   a i r,   l a n d s c a p e )   i n   2 7   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   S i g n i f i c a n t 
p ro g re s s   h a s   b e e n   m a d e   i n   t h e   l i t t l e   ove r   2 0   ye a r s   s i n c e   t h e 
p o l i c y   w a s   f i r s t   i n t r o d u c e d .   A   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   f a r m e r s   n o w 
implement more sustainable prac tices than they would other-
w i s e   h a v e   d o n e   w i t h o u t   s u c h   s u p p o r t   a n d   t h e   C o u r t ’s   a u d i t 
identified a number of best prac tice examples in several areas.

96.   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   C o u r t   a l s o   f o u n d   t h a t   t h e   p o l i c y   w a s   n o t 
d e s i g n e d   a n d   m o n i t o r e d   s o   a s   t o   d e l i v e r   t a n g i b l e   e n v i r o n -
m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s .   T h e   o b j e c t i v e s   w e r e   o v e r a l l   t o o   v a g u e   t o 
b e   u s e f u l   f o r   a s s e s s i n g   t h e   e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h   t h e y   h a v e   b e e n 
a c h i e ve d.   I n   a   n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s,   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p a y m e n t s 
are not clearly justified by the environmental pressures which 
h ave   b e e n   i d e n t i f i e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e s. 
The common monitoring and evaluation framework represents 
progress but produces little information on the environmental 
bene fit s achieved.

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   a n d   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h o u l d   f o r   e a c h 
a g r i - e nv iro nm e nt sub - m e asure  e nsure  th at :

Ū  c l e a r   o b j e c t i v e s ,   w h i c h   f i t   i n t o   t h e   h i e r a r c h y   o f   e n v i -
r o n m e nt a l   o b j e c t i ve s ,   a r e   s e t   i n   t h e   r u r a l   d eve l o p m e nt 
p ro g r amm e s;  

Ū  r u r a l   d eve l o p m e nt   p r o g r a m m e s   cl e a r l y   jus t i f y   t h e   su b -
m e asu r e s   w h i c h   t h e y   i n c l u d e   a n d   t h e   l i n k   b e t we e n   e n -
v iro nm e nt al p ressures an d a g r i - e nv iro nm e nt p ay m e nt s . 
I n   p a r t i c u l a r   p r o g r a m m e s   s h o u l d   s p e c i f y   w h e t h e r   t h e 
re latio nship b e t we en env iro nm ent al p ressures an d sub -
m e asu r e s   is   d i r e c t   o r   i n d i r e c t   a n d   as s e s s   w h e t h e r   a g r i -
environment supp or t is more appropriate than are avail -
ab l e al te r nati ve p o li ci e s .    

T h e  M e m b e r St ate s  sh o ul d  co ll e c t  an d re p o r t  re l ev ant an d 
reliable data on environmental benef its and use it for moni -
to r in g  p u r p os e s .

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

48

97.  

F a r m e r s   a r e   c r u c i a l   t o   t h e   s u c c e s s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
sch emes,  a nd  w it ho u t  su fficient   un der st and in g   an d  fi nan c i al 
i n c e n t i v e s ,   t h e   p o l i c y   w i l l   n o t   b e   a d e q u a t e l y   i m p l e m e n t e d . 
Th e   a u d i t   fo u n d   t h a t   f a r m e r s   we re   g e n e r a l l y   we l l   s u p p o r t e d 
t h ro u g h   g u i d a n c e,   a l t h o u g h   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   o f   b e s t   p r a c t i c e s 
a n d   f e e d b a c k   o n   t h e   r e s u l t s   c o u l d   b e   i m p r o v e d .   T h e   C o u r t 
i d e n t i f i e d   p ro b l e m s   i n   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   a i d   a m o u n t s.   I n 
a d d i t i o n ,   a s   a i d   a m o u n t s   a r e   n o t   d i f f e r e n t i a t e d   e n o u g h   a c -
c o r d i n g   t o   l o c a l   c o n d i t i o n s ,   a n d   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   r a t e s   a r e   n o t 
con sidered, t he r ight incentives are  n ot  always gi ven .

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 s u r e ,   b e f o r e   a p p r o v i n g   p r o -
g r am m e s , th at :

Ū  all  re l ev ant  e l e m e nt s  are in clu d e d  in  th e  c al cul ati o ns;  

Ū  t h e   m a i n   a s s u m p t i o ns   a n d   p a r a m e te r s   u s e d   a r e   a p p r o -

p r iate;

Ū  r e f e r e n c e   l e v e l s   a l w ay s   c o r r e s p o n d   t o   n o r m a l   f a r m i n g 
p r a c ti ce s  in  th e   are as   w h e re  th e  a g r i - e nv iro nm e nt  sub -
m e asu re s are imp l e m e nte d;

Ū  ai d am o unt s f o r sub - m easures aim e d at m aint ainin g e x-
is tin g  f ar m in g p r a c ti ce s  are b as e d  o n  re alis ti c cos t s;

Ū  aid amount s are dif ferentiate d in cases where this is jus-

ti f i e d .

98.   M e mb er   St ates  are  required  to  m ak e  s uppor t  availa ble   in   ac -
c o r d a n c e   w i t h   s p e c i f i c   n e e d s .   T h e y   h a d   n o t   c o n s i d e r e d   t h e 
desirable degree of targeting to their needs on the basis of an 
a n a l ys i s   o f   co s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   i nvo l ve d.   Pro ce d u re s   to   s e l e c t 
pro jec ts  w hic h  p rovide  the  best   e nv iron me ntal   val ue   for   mo -
ney were only applied in a few cases because budget resources 
we re   s u f f i c i e n t .   O t h e r   p ro c e d u re s,   s u c h   a s   d i f fe re n t i a t e d   E U 
contributions, evidence based sub-measures and setting quan -
t i f i e d   t a r g e t s   fo r   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   l e v e l s   b a s e d   o n   t h e   r e q u i r e d 
environmental effects were applied in only a minority of cases.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

49

28  Option 2 of the 
communication from the 

Commission ‘The CAP towards 

2020: Meeting the food, 

natural resources and territorial 

challenges of the future’.

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

T h e   au d i t   i d e nt i f i e d   th at   m o s t   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e nt   e x p e n d i -
t u re   is   m a d e   f o r   a   lim i te d   nu m b e r   o f   su b - m e asu r e s   im p l e -
m e n t e d   o n   t h e   w h o l e   p r o g r a m m e   a r e a .   F o r   t h e   n e x t   p r o -
gramming period, the Commission should consider whether:  

Ū  e x p e n d i t u r e   sh o u l d   b e   m o r e   p r e cis e l y   t a r g e te d   to   sp e -

ci f i c e nv iro nm e nt al  n e e ds;  

Ū  th e Co mmissi o n an d th e M e m b e r St ate s sh o ul d b e m o re 
proac tive in their management of agri - environment pay -
m e nt s , f o r e x amp l e by :  

o  re quiring M emb er St ates to b et ter jus tif y c as es when 
th e o bj e c ti ve is to maint ain e nv iro nm e nt all y f r i e n dl y 
f ar m in g  p r a c ti ce s;

o  ass essing the p otential b en e f it s create d by improve d 
g e o g r a p h i c a l   t a r g e t i n g   o f   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   e x p e n -
d i t u r e   v e r s u s   t h e   i n c r e a s e d   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   co s t s   i n -
cu r re d;

o  s e t t i n g   q u a n t i f i e d   t a r g e t s   f o r   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   l e v e l s 
based on the required environmental ef fec ts and then 
d e te r m inin g th e l eve l  o f f inan cial  re s o urce s  n e e d e d;

o  examining fur ther the usefulness of farm environmen -
t al  p l ans , o u tco m e b as e d  m e asure s ,   c a lls  f o r  te n d e r s 
an d co ll e c ti ve  co ntr a c t s;

Ū  t h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n   r a t e   f o r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b -
m e a s u r  e s   s h o u l d   b e   d i f f e r e n t i a t e d   s o   t h a t   t h o s e   s u b -
measures with a higher p otential to achieve lasting posi -
t i v e   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   e f f e c t s   r e c e i v e   a   h i g h e r   r a t e   o f   EU 
co ntr ib u ti o n .

99.  

The large amounts of money spent on entr y-level schemes, in 
contrast to the small amounts spent on higher-level schemes, 
w e r e   i n s u f f i c i e n t l y   j u s t i f i e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
grammes concerning their environmental effec ts. This distinc-
t i o n   i s   s u b j e c t   o f   d i s c u s s i o n s   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   t h e   Co m m i s -
sion’s proposal for the CAP after 2013, that simple, generalised 
ac tio ns  co ul d b e p ar t o f direc t pay me nt s   28.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

50

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

Fo r  th e  n e x t   p ro g r amm in g  p e r i o d ,   th e   Co m m issi o n  sh o ul d 
c o n s i d e r   w h e t h e r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   s h o u l d   b e 
s p l i t   i n t o   s i m p l e ,   g e n e r a l i s e d   a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t a l   a c t i o n s 
w i t h   a   r e l a t i v e l y   l o w   r a t e   o f   a i d   a n d   m o r e   d e m a n d i n g   a c-
t i o n s   a t t r a c t i n g   a   h i g h e r   r a t e   o f   a i d   a n d   t a r g e t e d   t o   E U -
l e v e l   p r i o r i t i e s   a r e a s .   S u p p o r t   f o r   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g   w o u l d 
co ns ti tu te a third m e asure.

100.  Notwithstanding progress achieved to date, there remains con-
siderable scope for increasing the effec tiveness of EU agri- en -
vironment polic y. There is still room for fur ther improving the 
design of this EU rural development polic y, and more informa -
tio n is  neces sar y o n t he effec ts  obtai n ed.  Alth ough  t he  aud it 
identified good prac tices, the weak nesses found by the Cour t 
h ave   h a m p e re d   o p t i m a l   a c h i e ve m e n t   o f   t h e   m a i n   o b j e c t i ve s 
of agr i- environment, namely contr ibuting to EU-level pr ior it y 
areas (biodiversit y, water, climate change) and improving the 
env iro nme nt  an d the co u nt r yside.

T h i s   r e p o r t   w a s   a d o p t e d   b y   C h a m b e r   I ,   h e a d e d   b y   M r   O l a v i 
ALA-NISSILÄ, Member of the Cour t of Auditors, in Luxembourg 
at  its  me eting  o f 24  M ay  20 11 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Audi to rs

Víto r  M anue l  da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi de nt

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

 
 
 
51

A N N E X 	 I

M A I N 	 F I N D I N G S 	 F R O M 	 P R E V I O U S 	 CO U R T 	 R E P O R T S 	 O N	 	
AG R I - E N V I R O N M E N T

The report on ‘Greening the CAP’ 1 contained the following findings: agri-environment 
payments benefited the environment by helping maintain existing extensive practices 
but they failed to encourage converting environmentally damaging intensive agriculture 
to environmentally sound farming methods; the targeting of EU funds according to pre-
established environmental priorities was limited, resulting in less environmental value for 
money than should have been achieved; in some cases, aid rates were too low to attract 
farmers to apply environmentally friendly farming techniques, whereas, in other cases, 
farmers received aid rates that were significantly in excess of their actual costs; finally 
the absence of quantitative objectives and environmental baselines made it difficult to 
monitor progress in achieving environmental goals.

The report on ‘The Verification of Agri-Environment expenditure’ 2 found that the Com-
mission had only partially ensured verifiability before approving rural development pro-
grammes and had not sufficiently verified the correct functioning of agri-environment 
control systems in the Member States. The audit findings in the Member States concerned 
the timing of on-the-spot checks and the verifiability of certain key sub-measures. The 
audit concluded that the verification of the agri-environment measure posed particular 
problems and could rarely lead to even reasonable assurance at a reasonable cost. In this 
context, it was recommended that the Commission, Council and Parliament should con-
sider how to take into account the principle whereby if a measure cannot be adequately 
checked, it should not receive public funds.   

1  Special Report No 14/2000.

2  Special Report No 3/2005.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

52

A N N E X 	 I I

D E S C R I P T I O N 	 A N D 	 I N D I C AT I O N 	 O F 	T H E 	 O R I G I N 	 O F 	T H E 	 AU D I T	
C R I T E R I A 	 U S E D 	TO 	 A N S W E R 	T H E 	 AU D I T 	 Q U E S T I O N S

Audit question
(see paragraph 13)

Is	agri-environment	policy	
designed	and	monitored	
so	as	to	deliver	tangible	
environmental	benefits?

Audit criterion

Explanation of the audit criterion

1.	The	agri-environment	measures	have	
precise	(SMART)	objectives,	closely	oriented	to	
identified	environmental	benefits.

2.	The	nature	of	the	environmental	pressures	in	
the	territories	is	clearly	identified,	justified	and	
prioritised.

3.	The	location	of	the	environmental	pressures	
in	the	territories	is	clearly	identified,	justified	
and	prioritised.

4.	Member	States	are	able	to	justify	the	need	
for	the	agri-environment	measures	in	relation	
to	the	environmental	pressure.

5.	Baseline	levels	and	planned	targets	have	
been	established	which	are	quantified	in	line	
with	the	needs	and	within	the	budget.

6.	The	Member	State	implementation	of	
the	common	monitoring	and	evaluation	
framework	makes	it	possible	to	assess	the	
environmental	effects	of	the	agri-environment	
schemes.

1.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	each	rural	
development	programme	must	include	information	on	the	specific	
verifiable	objectives	of	the	measures	and	that	their	progress,	
efficiency	and	effectiveness	must	be	measured	in	relation	to	these	
objectives	(Articles	16(c),	81(1)).

2.	and	3.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	and	Regulation	(EC)	
No	1974/2006	state	that	each	rural	development	programme	
must	describe	the	current	situation	of	the	environment	and	land	
management	in	the	geographical	area	using	quantified	data,	
highlighting	strengths	and	weaknesses,	disparities,	needs	and	
gaps	and	the	potential	for	rural	development	(Regulation	(EC)	
No	1698/2005,	Article	16(a)	and	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006,	
Annex II).

4.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006	states	that	each	rural	
development	programme	must	include	a	description	of	and	
justification	for	the	different	types	of	commitment	of	agri-
environment	payments	based	on	their	expected	environmental	
impact	in	relation	to	environmental	needs	and	priorities	(Annex	II).

5.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	the	progress,	efficiency	
and	effectiveness	of	rural	development	programmes	in	relation	
to	their	objectives	should	be	measured	by	means	of	indicators	
relating	to	the	baseline	situation	(Article	81(1)).	Regulation	(EC)	
No	1974/2006	states	that,	to	measure	progress	in	meeting	the	
objectives	of	the	rural	development	programme,	indicative	targets	
for	output,	result	and	impact	indicators	must	be	set	for	the	period	of	
implementation	of	the	programme	(Article	62(2)).

6.	The	CMEF,	implemented	according	to	Article	80	of	Regulation	
(EC)	No	1698/2005,	is	drawn	up	in	cooperation	between	the	
Commission	and	the	Member	States.	One	of	the	key	objectives	
of	this	monitoring	system	is	to	measure	the	results	of	the	
programmes:	the	CMEF	handbook	states	that	‘indicators	are	used	as	
tools	to	assess	how	far	the	expected	objectives	have	been	achieved	
by	measures	or	whole	programmes’.

7.	Additional	indicators	are	implemented	when	
necessary.

8.	Information	from	the	control	and	monitoring	
systems	is	used	to	identify	improvements	in	the	
design,	implementation	and	monitoring	of	the	
agri-environment	measures.

7.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	each	rural	
development	programme	must	specify	a	limited	number	of	
additional	indicators	specific	to	that	programme	(Article	81(2)).

8.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	the	Monitoring	
Committee	may	propose	to	the	Managing	Authority	any	
adjustment	or	review	of	the	programme	aimed	at	achieving	
the	objectives	of	the	EAFRD	or	improving	its	management	
(Article 78(e)).	

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

A N N E X 	 I I

Audit question
(see paragraph 13)

Are	farmers	well	
supported	through	
appropriate	guidance	and	
correct	aid	amounts?

53

Audit criterion

Explanation of the audit criterion

9.	Guidance	is	provided	to	(potential)	
beneficiaries	to	help	implementation	or	
increases	uptake	rates.

10.	The	Member	State	can	demonstrate	
progress	in	the	simplification	of	the	system	
used	to	manage	the	agri-environment	
measures.

11.	The	nature,	timing	and	extent	of	the	
commitments	and	checks	are	clearly	
identified.

12.	The	aid	amounts	are	fully	justified	by	data	
and	studies	from	reliable	sources.

13.	The	aid	amounts	are	correctly	calculated	
and	the	calculation	has	been	checked	by	
an	independent	body	from	the	Managing	
Authority.

14.	The	aid	amounts	are	differentiated	
according	to	regional	or	local	site	conditions.

15.	The	aid	amounts	give	the	adequate	
incentive	to	expect	an	impact	(result	in	
the	required	uptake	rates,	avoid	over-
compensation).

9.	Because	agri-environment	payments	are	voluntary	for	farmers,	
the	latter	need	to	be	aware	of	environmental	issues	and	how	to	
apply	the	requirements	of	sub-measures	they	can	implement.	
Upon	signing	a	contract,	farmers	need	to	understand	what	
is	expected	of	them.	Such	awareness	and	understanding	can	
be	achieved	by	guidance,	training	and	the	dissemination	of	
results.	This	criterion	is	based	on	a	sound	financial	management	
principle.

10.	A	common	criticism	of	agri-environment	policy	is	that	‘the	
rules	are	complex’.	In	view	of	simplification,	there	is	a	need	
to	assess	whether	there	is	actually	evidence	of	unnecessary	
complexity.	This	criterion	considers	complexity	with	regard	to	
the	management	system	rather	than	at	the	level	of	the	content	
of	the	agri-environment	schemes	themselves,	since	complex	
commitments	may	result	in	high	environmental	benefits.	This	
criterion	is	based	on	a	sound	financial	management	principle.

11.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1975/2006	(OJ	L	368,	23.12.2006,	p.	74)	
states	that	the	Member	States	must	establish	suitable	methods	
and	means	for	verifying	the	conditions	for	granting	support	
for	each	support	measure	(Article	10(2)).	On-the-spot	checks	
must	be	spread	over	the	year	and	must	cover	all	the	beneficiary	
commitments	and	obligations	that	can	be	checked	at	the	time	of	
the	visit	(Article	14).

12.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006	states	that	Member	States	
must	ensure	that	the	calculations	and	the	corresponding	support	
(a)	contain	only	elements	that	are	verifiable,	(b)	are	based	on	
figures	established	by	appropriate	expertise	and	(c)	indicate	
clearly	the	source	of	the	figures	(Article	53(2)).

13.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006	states	that,	in	order	to	
substantiate	and	confirm	the	adequacy	and	accuracy	of	
the	calculations	of	payments,	Member	States	must	ensure	
that	appropriate	expertise	is	provided	by	bodies	or	services	
functionally	independent	from	those	responsible	for	those	
calculations.	The	provision	of	such	expertise	must	be	evidenced	in	
the	rural	development	programme	(Article	48(2)).		

14.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006	states	that	Member	States	
must	ensure	that	the	calculations	and	the	corresponding	support	
are	differentiated	to	take	into	account	regional	or	local	site	
conditions	and	actual	land	use	as	appropriate	(Article	53(2)(d)).

15.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	the	payments	
must	cover	additional	costs	and	income	foregone	resulting	from	
the	commitment	made	(Article	39(4)).	Aid	amounts	are	also	
a	key	element	for	the	participation	of	farmers	in	the	measure.	
According	to	the	principles	of	sound	financial	management,	
aid	amounts	should	be	set	at	an	appropriate	level	to	attract	the	
required	number	of	farmers	while	avoiding	overcompensation.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

A N N E X 	 I I

Audit question
(see paragraph 13)

Does	the	management	of	
agri-environment	policy	
take	account	of	specific	
environmental	needs?

54

Audit criterion

Explanation of the audit criterion

16.	The	measures	are	targeted	to	the	needs	
of	the	regions;	and	in	particular	to	the	needs	
located	in	specific	areas.

17.	The	selection	procedures	provide	assur-
ance	that	the	budgets	available	are	used	to	
fund	the	projects	with	more	environmental	
value.

18.	The	Member	States	can	demonstrate	that	
the	measures	change	or	maintain	beneficial	
farming	practices	(i.e.	avoid	deadweight).

19.	The	Member	States	can	demonstrate	the	
validity	of	the	cause-and-effect	relationship	
between	the	farming	practices	envisaged	and	
the	environmental	benefits	expected.

20.	When	weaknesses	are	identified,	
agri-environment	measures	are	reviewed	
accordingly.

16.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	Member	States	
must	make	support	available	throughout	their	territories,	
in	accordance	with	their	specific	needs	(Article	39(1)).	The	
regulation	does	not	aim	at	the	complete	territorialisation	of	
agri-environment	payments.	However,	if	there	are	some	specific	
needs/environmental	pressures	in	certain	regions,	they	should	
be	addressed	by	specific	and	geographically	targeted	agri-
environment	measures.

17.	The	principles	of	sound	financial	management	require	that	
the	budgets	available	for	agri-environment	payments	should	be	
used	in	the	most	effective	and	efficient	way.	Procedures	should	
guarantee	that	the	available	funds	achieve	the	best	results.	A	
specific	budget	for	each	sub-measure	should	be	determined	
on	the	basis	of	environmental	criteria.	The	budget	should	be	
allocated	to	projects	with	most	environmental	value	through	se-
lection	procedures.	Article	39(4)	of	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	
provides	that	’…	beneficiaries	may	be	selected	on	the	basis	of	
calls	for	tender,	applying	criteria	of	economic	and	environmental	
efficiency.’

18.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	states	that	agri-environment	
payments	should	further	encourage	farmers	to	introduce	or	
continue	to	apply	agricultural	production	methods	compat-
ible	with	the	protection	and	improvement	of	the	environment	
(whereas 35).	However,	support	for	existing	practices	only	deliv-
ers	value	for	money	if	it	can	be	demonstrated	that	the	alternative	
to	support	would	be	the	discontinuation	of	such	practices.

19.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1974/2006	states	that	each	rural	develop-
ment	programme	must	include	a	description	and	justification	
of	the	different	types	of	commitment	of	agri-environment	
payments	based	on	their	expected	environmental	impact	in	
relation	to	environmental	needs	and	priorities	(Annex	II).	If	there	
is	no	sound	relationship	between	the	farming	practices	and	envi-
ronmental	benefits	the	measure	is	not	effective.	Member	States	
must	be	able	to	demonstrate	a	strong	relationship.

20.	Identifying	weaknesses	is	a	precondition	for	adapting	the	
agri-environment	payments,	in	which	case	Member	States	must	
take	adequate	action	to	ensure	that	the	weaknesses	are	cor-
rected.	Regulation	(EC)	No	1698/2005	includes	provisions	dealing	
with	review	of	the	rural	development	programmes	(Article	19)	
and	Article	86	provides	for	establishing	a	system	of	ongoing	
evaluation	for	each	rural	development	programme.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

55

A N N E X 	 I I I

O U T P U T 	 A N D 	 R E S U LT 	 I N D I C ATO R S 	 R E P O R T E D 	 BY 	T H E 	 E I G H T	
M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	 AU D I T E D

E
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

L
P

d
n
a
l
o
P

T
I

y
l
a
t
I

)
t
n
o
m
d
e
i
P
(

U
H

1
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

R
F

e
c
n
a
r
F

S
E

n
i
a
p
S

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A
(

)
n
o
i
g
e
R
(
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

E
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
n

i
l
r
e
B
(

-
n
e
d
n
a
r
B

)
g
r
u
b

T
A

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

2
6
7
2
5

6
6
7
1
2

6
7
7
7

4
7
2
9
7
2
2

2
8
0
5
5
5

0
8
8
8
4
1

9
5
6
7
8

6
8
9
5
4

7
8
0
8

9
3
0
5
5
1
2

3
6
2
2
7
4

7
0
1
7
4
1

0
1

0

0
0
0
1
2
0
2

0
0
0
8
6
9

0
0
0
7
8
8

0
0
0
3
8
5
1

P
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

P
N

5
8
8
9
1
2

5
4
8
4
0
2

5
3
4
9
2
1

5
4
8
4
0
2

0
6
7
0
8

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

A
N

0
1
2
8
1
1

9
2
1
6

4
9
1
2

7
1
1
7
1
1

4
3
7
0
0
1
8

0
9
8
5
4
9

8
2
4
3
3
2

6
7
4
2
5
1
4

0
1
2
8
1
1

0
8
3
5

7
5
6
2

9
0
2
0
7
3

3
2
1
3
1
0
4

0

8
0
3
3
1
2

6
8
5
2
0
2
2

P
N

A
N

P
N

0

2
5
6
1
0
6
7

3
4
8
2
8
3
1

6
6
0
2
6
6
1

0

0

2
9
1
7
2
4

4
7
9
5
1
5

6
5
1
4
2
4

4
7
9
5
1
5

0
0
9
6
7
7

6
9
5
9
2
2

1
6
7
0
3
2

0
9
0
6
1
2

7
5
1
7
8

2
7
4
0
1
1

3
8
7
0
9
9
2

1
3
8
5
9
7
2

5
6
6
3
4
6
2

0
5
5
6
6
4
3

6
1
8
8
1
6
2

r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n

i

f
o
e
p
y
T

i

l

f
o
s
g
n
d
o
h
d
n
a
s
g
n
d
o
h
m
r
a
f

l

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

o

t
u
p
t
u
O

t
r
o
p
p
u
s
g
n
i
v
i
e
c
e
r

s
r
e
g
a
n
a
m
d
n
a
l

r
e
h
t
o

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
-
i
r
g
a
r
e
d
n
u
a
e
r
a
l
a
t
o
T

o

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
-
i
r
g
a
r
e
d
n
u
a
e
r
a
l
a
c
i
s
y
h
P

)
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h
(

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

s
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
c

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h
(

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

o

o

c
i
t
e
n
e
g
o
t
d
e
t
a
l
e
r

s
n
o
i
t
c
a
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

o

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m
d
n
a
l

l

u
f
s
s
e
c
c
u
s

r
e
d
n
u
s
a
e
r
A

o

t
l
u
s
e
R

i

y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d
o
b
f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

y
t
i
l
a
u
q
r
e
t
a
w

f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

e
g
n
a
h
c
e
t
a
m

i
l
c
g
n
i
t
a
g
i
t
i

m

y
t
i
l
a
u
q

l
i

o
s

f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

i

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l
a
n
g
r
a
m

i

f
o
e
c
n
a
d
o
v
a

i

o

o

o

o

o

:
)
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h
(
o
t
g
n
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

.
t
i
d
u
a
e
h
t

f
o
e
m

i
t
e
h
t

t
a
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a
t
o
n
e
r
e
w
a
t
a
d
e
c
n
e
H

i

.
)
d
o
i
r
e
p
g
n
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
s
u
o
i
v
e
r
p
e
h
t
h
t
i

i

w
g
n
p
p
a
l
r
e
v
o
d
o
v
a
o
t

i

r
e
d
r
o
n
i
(
9
0
0
2
n

i
y
l
n
o
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
-
i
r
g
a
e
h
t
d
e
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

s
a
h
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

1

.
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d

l
a
r
u
r
e
h
t
n

i

d
e
n
n
a
l
p
t
o
n

.
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a
t
o
n
a
t
a
d

:

A
N

:

P
N

.

0
1
0
2
r
e
b
m
e
c
e
D
1
r
e
p
C
F
S
e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d
e
h
t
n

i

d
e
d
u
l
c
n

i

s
a
s
t
r
o
p
e
r

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p
9
0
0
2

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
56

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

I .
Agr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   i s   a   k e y   e l e m e nt   fo r   t h e 
integration of environmental concer ns into 
the common agr icultural polic y. Encourag-
i n g   f a r m e r s   t o   p r o t e c t   a n d   e n h a n c e   t h e 
e nv i ro n m e nt   o n   t h e i r   f a r m l a n d   by   re wa rd -
i n g   t h e m   fo r   t h e   p rov i s i o n   o f   e nv i ro n m e n-
t a l   s e r v i ce s,   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   p l ays   a   c r u-
c i a l   ro l e   fo r   m e e t i n g   s o c i e t y ’s   d e m a n d   fo r 
e nv i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   a n d   p u b l i c   g o o d s 
p rov i d e d   by   a gr i c u l t u re.   Agr i - e nv i ro n m e nt 
i s   c o m p a t i b l e   w i t h   a   w i d e   d i v e r s i t y   o f 
f a r m i n g   p ra c t i ce s   a n d   c a n   a d d re s s   a   b ro a d 
n u m b e r   o f   c h a l l e n g e s   re l e va nt   to   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   E U   a s   a   w h o l e .   I t s   c o n t r i -
bution to the improvement of the environ -
m e nt   l i n k e d   to   a gr i c u l t u ra l   a re a s   i s   l a rg e l y 
recognise d.

I I.
Th e   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   f r a m e wo r k   i s   s t r u c -
t u r e d   h i e r a r c h i c a l l y   w i t h   d i f f e r e n t   l a y e r s 
o f   o b j e c t i ve s.   A ny   a g gre g ate   f i g u re   o f   t h e 
d i f f e r e n t   o b j e c t i v e s   i s   l i k e l y   t o   o v e r s t a t e 
t h e   c o m p l e x i t y   o f   t h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
f r a m e w o r k   i f   n o t   p u t   i n   t h e   p r o p e r   c o n -
t e x t .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   v e r i f i e d   t h a t 
t h e   m e a s u r e s   a n d   o b j e c t i v e s   a r e   s p e c i f i c , 
m e a s u r a b l e ,   a c h i e v a b l e ,   r e a l i s t i c   a n d 
t i m e l y   t o   t h e   e x t e n t   p o s s i b l e   d u r i n g   t h e 
p r o c e d u r e   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s ’  a p p r o v a l . 
Wh i l e   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u b - m e a s u re s   c a n 
a l s o   a d d r e s s   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p o t e n t i a l s 
a n d   o p p o r t u n i t i e s,   a n d   w h i l e   e nv i ro n m e n-
t a l   p r e s s u r e s   c a n   b e   a d d r e s s e d   b y   a g r i -
e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d / o r   o t h e r 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   m e a s u r e s ,   t h e r e   i s   a 
c l e a r   l i n k   b e t w e e n   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s -
sures  an d  agr i- environ ment  sub -m ea sures. 
Th e   a c t u a l   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   b e n e f i t s   o f   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   c a n   o n l y   b e   d e t e r m i n e d   a f t e r   a 
c e r t a i n   p e r i o d   o f   t i m e   o f   t h e i r   i m p l e m e n -
t a t i o n .   T h e   m i d - t e r m   e v a l u a t i o n   ( M T E ) 
repor ts, submitted at the end of 2010, pro -
vide the first oppor tunit y for the impac t of 
r u ra l   d e ve l o p m e nt   p ro gra m m e s,   i n c l u d i n g 
agr i- environment schemes, to be assessed.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

5757

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

V.	 First 	 ind ent
W h i l e   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   a g r i -
environment sub -measures must be clear ly 
j u s t i f i e d,   t h e   m a i nte n a n ce   o f   e nv i ro n m e n -
t a l   p o t e n t i a l s   a n d   o p p o r t u n i t i e s   i s   a l s o 
co n s i d e re d   a s   a   va l i d   j u s t i f i c at i o n   fo r   a gr i -
e nv i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s .  T h e   c u r r e n t   l e g a l 
f r a m e w o r k   a l r e a d y   f o r e s e e s   c o n s i d e r a b l e 
re p o r t i n g   o b l i g a t i o n s ;   f u r t h e r   d i f fe re n t i a-
t i o n   w i l l   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   i n   t h e   p o s t - 2 0 1 3 
r e f o r m   w h i l e   e n s u r i n g   a t   t h e   s a m e   t i m e 
t h at   t h i s   d o e s   n o t   i n c re a s e   t h e   co m p l ex i t y 
and administrative burden of agr i- environ -
ment ’s m anage me nt.

V.	 S econ d	 ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h a t   i t s   a s s e s s -
m e n t   p ro c e s s   i s   s u f f i c i e n t l y   r i g o ro u s   w i t h 
r e g a r d   t o   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t .   H o w e v e r,   i t 
a gre e s   t h at   t h e re   i s   ro o m   fo r   i m p rove m e nt 
w i t h   r e g a r d   t o   s o m e   a s p e c t s ,   s u c h   a s   t h e 
l i n k   b e t we e n   t h e   i d e nt i f i e d   n e e d s   a n d   t h e 
commit ment s of agr i- environment.

Th ird 	 ind ent	 —	First 	 su b -ind ent
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   a 
n e e d   fo r   b e t t e r   t a r g e t i n g   i n   a g r i - e nv i ro n -
ment to ensure greater environmental ben-
e f i t s   a n d   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f 
t h e   m e a s u r e s .   H o w e v e r,   t a r g e t i n g   s h o u l d 
n o t   o n l y   b e   l i n k e d   to   s p e c i f i c   e nv i ro n m e n -
t a l   n e e d s   b u t   a l s o   to   t h e   ex i s t i n g   e nv i ro n -
menta l potential and oppor tuni tie s. 

Th ird 	 ind ent	 —	S econ d	 su b -ind ent 
I n t r o d u c i n g   d i f f e r e n t i a t e d   c o - f i n a n c i n g 
r a t e s   a t   s u b - m e a s u r e   l e v e l   w o u l d   l e a d 
t o   a   c o n s i d e r a b l e   a d d i t i o n a l   a d m i n i s t r a -
t i ve   b u rd e n   a n d   s i g n i f i c a n t l y   i n c re a s e   t h e 
r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a -
tion  of th e respec tive  programm es.

III.
The Commission agrees that the success of 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   d e p e n d s   o n   t h e   a c t i v e 
i n v o l v e m e n t   o f   f a r m e r s .   G o o d   p r a c t i c e s 
a r e   a   fo c a l   p o i n t   o f   a l l   E u r o p e a n   N e t w o r k 
for Rural D evelopment (EN RD) ac tions and 
disseminated t hro ug h t he var iou s  publ ic a-
tions issued and seminars organised. M em -
b e r   St ate s   c a n   a l s o   d i s s e m i n ate   b e s t   p ra c -
tices by t raining  and f ar m advis o r y  s er v ice 
m e a s u re s.  T h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   o f   a i d   a m o u n t s 
i s   t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t ate s 
a n d   i s   c e r t i f i e d   b y   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   b o d y. 
I n cases of doubts concer ning aid amounts 
p r o p o s e d ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w e r e   a s k e d   t o 
provide detailed information on the under-
l y i n g   c a l c u l at i o n s   a n d   re v i s e   t h e m ,   i f   n e c-
essar y. Calculations of aid amounts may be 
different iated ‘as ap p rop r iate’.

IV.	
T h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   i s   n o t 
t h e   o n l y   m e a n s   t o   e n s u r e   t h e   m o s t   e f f i -
c i e n t   a n d   e f fe c t i ve   w ay   o f   s p e n d i n g   u n d e r 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t .   E l i g i b i l i t y   c o n d i t i o n s 
a n d   re gi o n a l   t a rg e t i n g   c a n   s e r ve   t h e   s a m e 
p u r p o s e.  T h a t   b e i n g   s a i d ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
a gre e s   t h at   a   f u r t h e r   i m p rove m e nt   re g a rd-
i ng   b et te r   t arg et in g  o f  agr i- envi ron me nt   is 
n e c e s s a r y   a n d   i s   e n v i s a g e d   i n   t h e   f r a m e -
wor k  of  the  C AP  post-2013.  However,  M em-
b e r   S t a t e s   m u s t   s t r i k e   a   b a l a n c e   b e t w e e n 
the cost of implementing this approach and 
the expec ted environmental benefits. S ome 
r ural   d evel o pme nt  progra m me s  (R DP )  have 
a c t u a l l y   c o n s i d e r e d   t h e   d e s i r a b l e   d e g r e e 
o f   t a r g e t i n g   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f 
the costs and benefits involved. M uch envi-
r o n m e n t a l   r e s e a r c h   a n d   e v i d e n c e   i s   a v a i l -
a b l e   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   w h o   t a k e   t h i s   i n t o 
account when designing their programmes. 
N e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a g re e s   t h a t 
c e r t a i n   t y p e s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   o p e r a -
t i o n s   wo u l d   m e r i t   m o re   re s e a rc h .  Th e   re l a -
t i v e   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   w o u l d   h a v e   t o   b e 
c o n s i d e re d   b e fo re   u n d e r t a k i n g   s u c h   a d d i-
t i o n a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   s p e c i f i c a l l y   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   a g r i -
e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s .   T h e   p u r p o s e 
o f   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u p p o r t   i s   n o t   o n l y   to 
a d d r e s s   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r o b l e m s   b u t   a l s o 
t o   m a i n t a i n   a n d   e n h a n c e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
potentials and oppor tunities.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

58

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

Third	inde nt	—	Third	s ub -ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at,   i n   a cco rd-
a n c e   w i t h   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y, 
t h e   c o n c r e t e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t a l   o p e r a -
t i o n s   s h o u l d   b e   d e f i n e d   a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e 
a n d   n o t   a t   E U   l e ve l.   S i m p l e   s u b - m e a s u re s 
allow broader par ticipation of far mers and 
t e r r i t o r i a l   c o v e r a g e,   w h i l e   m o r e   d e m a n d -
i n g   s u b - m e a s u re s   h ave   a   h i g h e r   p o t e n t i a l 
i n   c a s e s   w h e r e   s p e c i f i c   p r o b l e m s   a r e   t o 
b e   a d d r e s s e d   a n d   s p e c i f i c   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
impa c ts are exp ec ted.  I t  is not  al ways  e asy 
t o   d i v i d e   t h e s e   t w o   t y p e s   o f   o p e r a t i o n s 
i nto   t wo   s e p a rate   gro u p s   a s   t h e   e f fe c t i ve -
n e s s   o f   t h e   s i m p l e   o p e r a t i o n s   c a n   b e   o f   a 
sign ificant  enviro nmental  val ue.

8 .
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h a t ,   w h i l e   t h e 
C o m m u n i t y   l e g i s l a t i o n   d e f i n e s   p r i n c i p l e s 
r e g a r d i n g   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   a s   a   r u r a l 
d e ve l o p m e n t   m e a s u re,   t h e   d e f i n i t i o n   a n d 
d e s i g n   o f   s u b - m e a s u r e s   s h o u l d   b e   l e f t   t o 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   T h i s   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   r e f l e c t s   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f 
subsidiar it y.

M o re o ve r,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t 
b a s i c   a n d   m o re   d e m a n d i n g   s c h e m e s   co m-
p l e m e nt   e a c h   o t h e r.   S u c h   a   co m p l e m e nt a -
r i t y   p rov i d e s   fo r   a   b ro a d   p a r t i c i p at i o n   a n d 
a   w i d e   t e r r i t o r i a l   c o v e r a g e   a n d   h e l p s   t o 
addres s specif ic environ mental probl ems.

Third	inde nt	—	Fou r th	s ub -ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a re s   t h e   Co u r t ’s   re co m -
men datio n. 

9 .
B a s i c   s u b - m e a s u re s   a l s o   a i m   a t   i m p rov i n g 
the environmental awareness among far m -
e r s   a n d   e n c o u r a g i n g   t h e m   t o   a p p l y   f o r 
more ad vance d sub - me asure s.

1 0.
Pay m e nt s   a re   c a l c u l ate d   i n   re l at i o n   to   t h e 
c o s t   i n c u r r e d / i n c o m e   f o r e g o n e   l i n k e d   t o 
t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   p re s c r i p t i o n ,   n o t   i n   re l a-
t i o n   to   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   g e n e r-
ated. Therefore, there is no direc t relation -
s h i p   b e t w e e n   m o r e   d e m a n d i n g,   i . e .   m o r e 
expensive, sub -measures and greater envi -
ronm ental ben efits.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

5959

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

OBSERVATIONS

23– 24.
Wh i l e   i t   i s   ce r t a i n l y   co m p l ex ,   t h e   Co m m i s -
s i o n   d o e s   n o t   c o n s i d e r   t h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n -
ment  framewor k to b e over l y co mp l i c ate d.

A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i s   s t r u c t u r e d   h i e r a r -
c h i c a l l y   a n d   c o n s i s t s   o f   d i f f e r e n t   l a y e r s 
o f   o b j e c t i v e s .   W i t h i n   t h i s   h i e r a r c h y,   a n y 
o b j e c t i ve   c a n   b e   v i e we d   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f 
a   b ro a d e r   o b j e c t i ve ( s )   to   w h i c h   i t   co nt r i b -
u t e s,   a n d   a l s o   t o   m o re   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i ve s 
t h a t   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   i t .   T h e   m o r e   g e n e r a l 
o b j e c t i v e   i s   g r a d u a l l y   d e c o m p o s e d   i n t o 
m o r e   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i v e s .   A n y   a g g r e g a t e 
f i g u r e   o f   t h e   d i f fe r e n t   o b j e c t i v e s   i s   l i k e l y 
t o   o v e r s t a t e   t h e   c o m p l e x i t y   o f   t h e   a g r i -
e nv i r o n m e n t   f r a m e w o r k   i f   i t   i s   n o t   p u t   i n 
t h e   p r o p e r   c o n t e x t ,   s i n c e   i t   o b s c u r e s   t h i s 
h i e r a r c h i c a l   s t r u c t u r e   a n d   t h e   r e l a t i o n s 
bet ween differe nt l ayers o f ob je c t i ve s.

M oreover, not all environmental objec tives 
need to be addressed by agr i- environment. 
Th e y   c a n   a l s o   b e   a d d re s s e d   by   o t h e r   a l te r -
n at i ve   p o l i c i e s   o r   o t h e r   r u ra l   d e ve l o p m e nt 
measures  1. As regards the Cour t ’s obser va-
t i o n   t h at   i n d i v i d u a l   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u b -
m e a s u re s   a re   l i n k e d   to   s e ve ra l   o b j e c t i ve s, 
this is due to the fac t that, apar t from their 
m a i n   o b j e c t i ve,   t h e y   u s u a l l y   a l s o   c o n t r i b -
ute to other  e nvironmental  o b jec t i ves  2.

H o w e v e r,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s 
t h a t   t h e   l i n k   b e t w e e n   s o m e   o b j e c t i v e s   o f 
d i f f e r e n t   h i e r a r c h i c a l   l e v e l s   ( c o m m u n i t y, 
n a t i o n a l ,   r e g i o n a l ,   p e r   m e a s u r e ,   p e r   s u b -
m e a s u re )   c o u l d   b e   c l a r i f i e d   i n   t h e   c a s e   o f 
A n d a l u c í a   b y   h a r m o n i s i n g   t h e   o b j e c t i ve s ' 
wording.

25.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   v e r i f i e d   t h a t   t h e 
measure and objec tives are specific, meas -
u r a b l e,   a c h i e v a b l e,   re a l i s t i c   a n d   t i m e l y   a s 
w e l l   a s   v e r i f i a b l e   t o   t h e   e x t e n t   p o s s i b l e 
d u r i n g   t h e   p ro c e d u re   o f   t h e   p ro g r a m m e s’ 
approval.

M o re ove r,   o b j e c t i ve s   fo r m u l ate d   i n   a   g e n -
e r a l   m a n n e r   c a n   v e r y   w e l l   p r o v i d e   a   s p e -
c i f i c   m e a s u r a b l e   o u t c o m e   w h i c h   c a n   b e 
a s s e s s e d ,   i f   t h e y   a r e   c o m b i n e d   w i t h   s p e -
c i f i c   t a r g e t s   ( s u c h   a s  ‘ r e d u c e   b y   2 0  % ’ )   3. 
S u c h   s p e c i f i c   t a r g e t s   s h o u l d   b e   s e t   b y 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w h e n e v e r   p o s s i b l e .   I n i -
t i a l l y,   s o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a d   d i f f i c u l -
ties to establish baseline levels due to lack 
o f   a d e q u a t e   s t a t i s t i c a l   d a t a .   H owe ve r,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   to g e t h e r   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a te s 
h a v e   u n d e r t a k e n   s t e p s   t o   r e m e d y   t h e   s i t-
u a t i o n .   W i t h   r e g a r d   t o   t i m e   f r a m e s ,   a g r i -
e nv i ro n m e nt   o b j e c t i ve s   a re   to   b e   at t a i n e d 
a t   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   m e a s u r e ’s   a p p l i c a t i o n 
( 5 -   o r   7 - y e a r   p e r i o d ) ,   u n l e s s   s p e c i f i e d 
 oth er wise.

1  For instance, in the case of Andalucía, water scarcity is tackled 
by axis 1 measures and other funds; biodiversity and climate 

change are addressed by forestry measures of axis 2, agri-

environment, axis 1 measures (training, investments), and other 

European and national funds.

2 

In the particular case of Andalucía, the hierarchy of 

environmental objectives is the following:

(a) Council Decision 2006/144 identifies three environmental 

priorities at Community level: biodiversity and High Nature Value, 

water, and climate change.

(b) On this basis, the Spanish National Strategy Plan (NSP) identifies 

five general objectives: biodiversity, water, climate change 

(reflecting the community priorities), soil erosion, and landscape 

maintenance (reflecting specific problems in Spain). The five 

general objectives are further developed into 19 objectives.

(c) The 19 operational environmental objectives of the NSP are 

directly linked with objectives set out for different RDP measures, 

mostly from axis 2, but also from axes 1 and 3.

(d) The agri-environment measure is implemented through 15 sub-

measures. All the objectives defined for all sub-measures have a 

direct link with the objectives defined in the RDP and the NSP.

3  For example, the programme of Andalucía includes a sub-
measure with an objective to maintain genetic resources. As 

the baseline situation (number of animals concerned certified 

by a relevant organism) is well described and targets for the 

programming period clearly set, the objectives are both clear and 

verifiable.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

60

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 1–3 2 .
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   o p i n i o n   t h at   t h e 
e v a l u a t i o n   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t ’s   e f f e c -
t i v e n e s s   s h o u l d   b e   p e r f o r m e d ,   a s   i s   c u r -
re n t   p r a c t i c e,   a t   t h e   a x i s   l e ve l   i n   t e r m s   o f 
r e s u l t s ,   a n d   a t   p r o g r a m m e   l e v e l   i n   t e r m s 
of impac ts. Attempting to assess the effec-
t i v e n e s s   a t   s u b - m e a s u r e   l e v e l   w o u l d   c r e -
a t e   d i s p ro p o r t i o n a l l y   h i g h   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve 
co s t s   a n d   b u rd e n ,   a n d   wo u l d   n o t   b e   l i k e l y 
to le ad to con c lusive  f indings.

M o r e o v e r,   w h i l e   s o m e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
s u b - m e a s u r e s   a d d r e s s   p o t e n t i a l s   a n d 
o p p o r t u n i t i e s,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   m a i n t a i n s 
t h at   t h e re   i s   a   c l e a r   l i n k   b e t we e n   e nv i ro n-
m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   a n d   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
s u b - m e a s u r e s .   F o r   f u r t h e r   d e t a i l s ,   s e e 
reply  to point  3 0 .

3 3.
A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   g e n e r a l   a s p e c t s   o f   t h e 
C o u r t ’s   o b s e r v a t i o n ,   p l e a s e   r e f e r   t o   t h e 
replies to points 30 and 31–32. The charac -
t e r   o f   t h e   l i n k   t o   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   p re s -
sures it responds to can usually be inferred 
from t he sub - measure’s content.

3 7.
R u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   ( R D P ) 
m u s t   e n s u r e   t h e   r e s p e c t   o f   t h e   r e l e v a n t 
legal obligations resulting from alter native 
p o l i c i e s .   T h e   r e l e v a n t   r e g u l a t o r y   f r a m e -
w o r k   t h a t   c o n s t i t u t e s   a   b a s e l i n e   fo r   a g r i -
e nv i ro n m e nt   o p e rat i o n s   i s   c h e c k e d   by   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   w h e n   a s s e s s i n g   a gr i - e nv i ro n-
ment m easures.

4  The impact indicators for reversal of biodiversity decline and 
prevention of climatic change also define changes from the 2005 

baseline.

As   re g a rd s   Po l a n d,   w h i l e   i t   i s   t r u e   t h at   t h e 
te x t u a l   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   o b j e c t i ve s   d o e s 
n o t   s p e c i f i c a l l y   re fe r   to   t h e   b a s e l i n e,   e a c h 
a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t   p a c k a g e   ( s u b - m e a s u r e ) 
h a s   a   q u a n t i f i e d   o u t p u t   i n d i c a t o r,   i n c l u d -
i n g   Pa c k a g e   8 ,  ‘ S o i l   a n d   wate r   p ro te c t i o n’. 
Ad d i t i o n a l l y,   t h e   i m p a c t   i n d i c ato r   d e f i n e d 
f o r   t h e   m e a s u r e   a s   a   w h o l e ,   n a m e l y 
‘ I m p r o v e m e n t   o f   w a t e r   q u a l i t y ’  d e f i n e s   a 
p e r c e n t a g e   c h a n g e   f r o m   t h e   2 0 0 5   b a s e -
l i n e   4.   W i t h   r e s p e c t   t o   t i m e   f r a m e ,   t h e 
c o l u m n   c o n t a i n i n g   t h e   t a r g e t   i s   h e a d e d 
‘ 2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ’  i m p l y i n g   t h a t   t h e   p ro g r a m m i n g 
per iod is th e time frame.

27.
O u tco m e - o r i e nte d   s u b - m e a s u re s   c a n   o f fe r 
a   g r e a t   d e g r e e   o f   f l e x i b i l i t y   i n   d e s i g n i n g 
and managing agr i- environment. However, 
t h e y   c a n   o n l y   b e   a p p l i e d   t o   c e r t a i n   t y p e s 
o f   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s c h e m e s   w h e re   m o n i-
t o r i n g   o f   t h e i r   r e s u l t s   i s   p o s s i b l e   a t   f a r m 
l e ve l.   I n   m a ny   c a s e s,   m e a s u r i n g   o u tco m e s 
o f   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a d d r e s s i n g   p h y s i c a l l y 
m o re   d i f f u s e   p ro b l e m s   at   f a r m   l e ve l   wo u l d 
n o t   b e   re l i a b l e   ( d u e   to   a n   i nte ra c t i o n   w i t h 
ac t ivit ies o f ot her f ar mers in the   are a).

30.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a i n t a i n s   t h a t   i n   t h e 
c i t e d   e x a m p l e s ,   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s -
s u r e s   j u s t i f y   t h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b -
mea su res.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   i d e n t i f i e d   i n 
r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e s   ( R D P )   c a n 
b e   a d d r e s s e d   b y   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s u b -
m e a s u re s   a n d / o r   o t h e r   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t 
m e a s u re s.  T h u s,   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   n o t   a l l   e nv i -
ro n m e n t a l   p re s s u re s   i d e n t i f i e d   i n   R D P   a re 
a d d re s s e d   by   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s-
u re s   d o e s   n o t   s u p p o r t   t h e   co n c l u s i o n   t h a t 
the environmental pressures did not clearly 
justify agr i- environment sub -measures.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

6161

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

4 1.
M o n i t o r i n g   t a b l e s   c o n t a i n   d a t a   o n   o p e r a -
t i o n s   i n c l u d e d   i n   d e c l a r a t i o n s   o f   e x p e n d -
i t u r e   a l r e a d y   p a i d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   i n 
o rd e r   to   e n s u re   co n s i s te n c y   w i t h   f i n a n c i a l 
execution tables. 

I n   A n d a l u c í a ,   d u e   to   d e l ays   i n   t h e   p re s e n -
t a t i o n   o f   t h e   d e c l a r a t i o n s   o f   e x p e n d i t u r e 
b y   t h e   P a y i n g   A g e n c y,   c e r t a i n   a m o u n t s 
already paid to beneficiaries have not been 
declared yet to the Commission. Thus, out-
p u t   a n d   r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e 
m o n i t o r i n g   t a b l e s   m a y   n o t   c o r r e s p o n d 
t o   t h e   a m o u n t s   a c t u a l l y   p a i d   o u t   t o   b e n -
e f i c i a r i e s.   O n c e   t h e s e   i n i t i a l   p ro b l e m s   a re 
s o l ve d,   i t   i s   e x p e c t e d   t h a t   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g 
tables  will provide more reliable  d ata . 

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   Fr a n c e ,   t h e   i n d i c a t o r s   s u b -
m i t t e d   i n   2 0 0 8   w e r e   i n c o m p l e t e   ( e s p e -
c i a l l y   t h e   r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r s ) .   A c c o r d i n g   t o 
t h e   Fr e n c h   a u t h o r i t i e s ,   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a -
tion of some measures was not sufficiently 
advanced to allow the measurement of any 
r e s u l t s .   T h e   i n d i c a t o r s   s u b m i t t e d   i n   2 0 0 9 
are more compreh ensive. 

5  For example, baseline for agri-environment in form of cross-
compliance, the use of Art. 68 of Reg. 73/2009, Common Market 

Organisation regime such as fruits and vegetables Operational 

Programmes. Member States were requested to provide 

information on the use of other policy tools in cases where an 

environmental priority was not clearly supported by the RDP 

proposed.

6   In the framework of a specific and exhaustive check of the rural 
development programme (RDP) targets in 2008, the Commission 

sent the Member States a list of comments (missing targets, 

wrong calculations …) and invited the Managing Authorities (MA) 

to send a completed and improved set of baselines and targets 

(output, result and impacts) in 2009. The annual report indicators 

(output and result) are validated by the Commission. If anomalies 

are identified, a resubmission of the annual reports is requested. 

In addition, the screening of the tables across RDP is performed 

by the European Network for Rural Development (EN RD) contact 

point.

W h i l e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   a n d   o t h e r   p o l i -
c i e s   a n d   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   i n s t r u m e n t s 
c a n   c o m p l e m e n t   e a c h   o t h e r   i n   a c h i e v i n g 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l   o b j e c t i v e s ,   f o r   r e a s o n s   o f 
s u b s i d i a r i t y,   i t   s h o u l d   b e   l e f t   to   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   t o   a s s e s s   w h i c h   p o l i c i e s   t o   u s e 
f o r   a   g i v e n   p u r p o s e .   Tr a i n i n g   a n d   a d v i c e 
a r e   a l s o   c o m p l e m e n t a r y   t o o l s   w h i c h   c a n 
s u b s t a n t i a l l y   i m p r o v e   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   co n -
s t a n t l y   e n c o u r a g i n g   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
make u se  of t he s e ins tru ments.

I n   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   R D P,   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   c h e c k e d   w h e t h e r   o t h e r   p o l i c i e s   h a d 
b e e n   u s e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   a c h i e v e 
a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   o b j e c t i ve s   5.   I t   w a s   a l s o 
a s s e s s e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   d e m a r c a t i o n   l i n e 
b e t w e e n   t h e s e   i n s t r u m e n t s   a n d   R D P   w a s 
clear ly  de fined.

39.
W h e r e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   j u s t i f y   t h e   l i n k s 
b e t w e e n   t h e   m e a s u r e   p r o p o s e d   a n d   t h e 
environmental needs identified in the rural 
development programme (RDP), and where 
the measure’s commitments go beyond the 
r e f e r e n c e   l e v e l ,   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   c a n   b e 
u s e d   a s   a n   i n s t r u m e n t   t o   a d d r e s s   t h o s e 
n e e d s   a n d   p rov i d e   a   re m e d y   fo r   t h e m .  Th e 
Co m m i s s i o n   e n s u re s,   t h ro u g h   t h e   r u l e s   o n 
d e m a r c a t i o n ,   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   n o   o v e r l a p   i n 
p a y m e n t s   b e t w e e n   v a r i o u s   E U   f u n d s   a n d 
suppor ts.

Please see also  the reply to  p oint  3 7 .

40.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   we l c o m e s   t h a t   t h e   Co u r t 
r e c o g n i s e s   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   b r o u g h t 
a b o u t   by   t h e   i nt ro d u c t i o n   o f   t h e   Co m m o n 
M o n i t o r i n g   a n d   E v a l u a t i o n   F r a m e w o r k 
( C M E F ) .   T h e r e   i s   a   l e a r n i n g   p r o c e s s   w i t h 
a ny   n e w   s y s t e m ,   a n d   i t   s h o u l d   t a k e   s o m e 
time  for  al l   ac tor s  invol ved  to   b e co m e   s uf -
f i c i e n t l y   f a m i l i a r   w i t h   t h e   C M E F,   to   g e n e r-
ate t he  re quire d qu al it y  of dat a   6.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

62

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

4 4.
The  impleme nt ation  of  th e  Commo n  M on i -
t o r i n g   a n d   E v a l u a t i o n   Fr a m e w o r k   ( C M E F ) 
d u r i n g   t h e   2 0 0 7 – 1 3   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d 
r e p r e s e n t s   a   l e a r n i n g   p h a s e .   W h i l s t   a 
c o n s i d e r a b l e   i m p r o v e m e n t   o n   t h e   p r e v i -
o u s   s i t u a t i o n ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s 
a c k n o w l e d g e   t h a t   i t   c o u l d   s t i l l   b e   f u r t h e r 
i m p r o v e d .   T h e   p o s t - 2 0 1 3   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d 
e v a l u a t i o n   s y s t e m   f o r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
will tak e account  of lesson s lear n e d.

I n   t h e   H u n g a r i a n   c a s e,   t h e   i s s u e s   o f   wate r 
a n d   s o i l   q u a l i t y   a n d   b i o d i v e r s i t y   p r o t e c -
tion are already well covered by indicators 
related to axis 2, where Hungar y has added 
13 additional, baseline indicators with cor -
responding target figures, several of which 
c o n c e r n   t h e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   m e a s u r e 
(e.g. Protec tion of cultivated area jeopard -
ised by soil loss (water and wind erosion)), 
w h i c h   c o r r e s p o n d   t o   t h e   f i v e   c o r e   o b j e c -
t i v e s   o f   t h e   H u n g a r i a n   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
 meas ure. 

4 5.
T h e   f i n a n c i a l   f o l l o w - u p   i s   o r g a n i s e d   a t 
m e a s u r e   l e v e l .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t 
c o n s i d e r   i t   f e a s i b l e   t o   e n s u r e   a   f i n a n c i a l 
fo l l o w - u p   a t   t h e   l e ve l   o f   s u b - m e a s u re s   a s 
t h i s   w o u l d   p r o d u c e   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   a d m i n -
i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   w h i c h   w o u l d   n e i t h e r   b e 
j u s t i f i e d   n o r   a c c e p t e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s . 
Fu r t h e r m o re,   s u c h   a n   a p p ro a c h   wo u l d   n o t 
be consistent with and dispropor tionate in 
c o m p a r i s o n   t o   o t h e r   s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t 
policies. 

H o we ve r,   w h i l e   N a t u r a   2 0 0 0   h a s   n o t   b e e n 
fo re s e e n   a s   a   s p e c i f i c   c a te g o r y   w i t h i n   t h e 
agr i- environment measure since a separate 
measure is available, the monitoring tables 
d o   p r o v i d e   a n   a r e a   b r e a k d o w n   a c c o r d i n g 
t h e   d i f f e r e n t   L e s s   F a v o u r e d   A r e a   ( L FA ) 
 categor ie s. 

As  rega rds  t he   Co u r t ’s   obs er vati o n   reg a rd -
i n g   o v e r s t a t e m e n t   o f   e x p e n d i t u r e s ,   b o t h 
a n n u a l   a n d   c u m u l a t i v e   e x p e n d i t u r e s   a r e 
r e q u e s t e d .   B o t h   s e t s   o f   d a t a   a r e   v a l u -
a b l e   f o r   o u r   a n a l y s e s .   I m p r o v e m e n t s   t o 
t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   s y s t e m ,   t o   a l l o w   a   c l o s e r 
l i n k   t o   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a s   we l l   a s   c o r re l a -
t i o n   w i t h   r e i m b u r s e m e n t s   m a d e   t o   M e m -
b e r   St ate s   a re   u n d e r   co n s i d e rat i o n   fo r   t h e 
future pro gramming  p er iod.

43.
The task of measur ing the result indicators 
i s   t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   r e i t e r a t e d   a t   d i f f e r -
e n t   o c c a s i o n s   ( e v a l u a t i o n   e x p e r t   c o m m i t-
t e e ,   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t   C o m m i t t e e )   t h a t 
o n l y   t h e   a r e a   u n d e r   s u c c e s s f u l   l a n d   m a n -
a g e m e n t   c a n   b e   c o m p i l e d   a n d   i n c l u d e d 
i n   t h e   i n d i c a t o r   i n   q u e s t i o n .  T h e   Co m m i s -
s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   t h e re   i s   a   n e e d   to   f u r t h e r 
improve the indicators’ implementation by 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   T h e   r e v i s i o n   o f   t h e   p o s t -
2013 monitor ing and evaluation system for 
r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   w i l l   a d d re s s   t h i s   q u e s-
tion.

The situation found by the Cour t descr ibed 
in  th is  pa ragrap h  is   p ro b ab ly   d u e   to  incor-
re c t   d at a   co m p i l at i o n   a n d   p re s e nt at i o n   by 
M e m b e r   St ate s.  Th e re   a re   t wo   o u t p u t   i n d i -
cators related to agr i- environment (35 and 
3 6 ) :   t h e   f i r s t   a g g r e g a t e s   t h e   a r e a   u n d e r 
c o n t r a c t   ( a   h e c t a r e   i s   c o u n t e d   t w i c e   i f   i t 
i s   s u b j e c t   t o   t w o   c o n t r a c t s ) ,   t h e   s e c o n d 
a g g r e g a t e s   p h y s i c a l   a r e a   ( e a c h   h e c t a r e 
i s   c o u n t e d   o n l y   o n c e ) .   T h e   r e s u l t   i n d i c a -
t o r  ‘a r e a   u n d e r   s u c c e s s f u l   l a n d   m a n a g e -
m e n t ’  i s   s u b d i v i d e d   i n t o   f i v e   s u b - c a t e g o -
r i e s.   E a c h   a c t i v i t y   f u n d e d   u n d e r   a x i s   2   c a n 
c o n t r i b u t e   t o   o n e   o r   m o r e   o f   t h e s e .     T h e 
r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r   i s   s e t   a t   a x i s   l e v e l ,   n o t   a t 
m e a s u r e   l e v e l ,   t h u s   t h e   c o n t r i b u t i o n   o f 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   m e a s u re s   i s   a g gre g a te d 
w i t h   t h a t   o f   o t h e r   a x i s   2   m e a s u r e s .   T h u s 
t h e   f i g u r e s   r e c o r d e d   u n d e r   r e s u l t   i n d i c a -
tor 6 would not be expec ted to cor respond 
d i r e c t l y   t o   e i t h e r   o u t p u t   i n d i c a t o r   3 5 
or  36.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

6363

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

M o r e o v e r,   b a s i c   s u b - m e a s u r e s   d o   n o t   p e r 
s e   d e l i v e r   o n l y   l i m i t e d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
b e n e f i t s .   I f   w e l l   d e s i g n e d ,   w i t h   r e l e v a n t 
r e q u i r e m e n t s   a n d   c o r r e c t l y   i m p l e m e n t e d 
in relevant areas, even if not ver y demand -
i n g ,   t h e y   c a n   b r i n g   g r e a t   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
ben efits s pread  th roug hout  a  wide  area.

Fo r   t h e   p u r p o s e   o f   i d e n t i f y i n g   t h e   e f f e c -
t i ve n e s s   o f   a   m e a s u re,   t h e   e va l u at i o n   m ay 
assess different agr i- environment schemes 
s e p a r a t e l y ,   a l t h o u g h   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
i m p a c t s   a re   a s s e s s e d   a t   p ro g r a m m e   l e ve l, 
s i n ce   t h e y   a re   t h e   re s u l t   o f   a   co m p l e x   m i x 
of inte r ve nt ion s and ex ter nal  fa c tor s.

4 7.
T h e   e x p e c t e d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s 
o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   a n d   a x e s   h a v e   b e e n 
e s t a b l i s h e d   i n   t h e   r u ra l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro -
g r a m m e s   ( R D P ) ,   a n d   v a l i d a t e d   t h ro u g h   e x 
ante evaluation. Fur ther more, the environ-
ment is a ver y complex system where most 
processes are ver y slow and environmental 
o u t c o m e s   t a k e   t i m e   t o   d e v e l o p.   T h u s ,   f o r 
m a n y   s u b - m e a s u r e s   t h e   a c t u a l   e n v i r o n -
m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   c a n   o n l y   b e   d e t e r m i n e d 
a f t e r   a   c e r t a i n   p e r i o d   o f   t i m e .   T h e   m i d -
t e r m   e v a l u a t i o n   re p o r t s,   s u b m i t t e d   a t   t h e 
e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   p rov i d e   t h e   f i r s t   o p p o r t u n i t y 
fo r   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   R D P,   i n c l u d i n g   a gr i - e nv i -
r o n m e n t   s c h e m e s ,   t o   b e   a s s e s s e d .     H o w -
e v e r,   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   e x p e c t e d 
r e s u l t s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s c h e m e s   a r e 
m o n i to re d   o n   a   re g u l a r   b a s i s   a n d   re p o r te d 
to   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a n n u a l l y   i n   t h e   A n n u a l 
Progress R e por ts.

I n   t h e   r e v i s i o n   o f   t h e   C o m m o n   M o n i t o r -
i n g   a n d   E v a l u a t i o n   Fr a m e w o r k   (C M E F )   fo r 
t h e   p o s t - 2 0 1 3   p e r i o d   o t h e r   g e o g r a p h i c a l 
brea kdowns w ill b e co ns id ered.

46.
T h e   o u t p u t   i n d i c a t o r   3 5   ( t o t a l   a re a   u n d e r 
a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s u p p o r t )   i s   i n d e e d   s u b -
d i v i d e d   a c c o rd i n g   t o   1 2   t y p e s   o f   c o m m i t -
m e n t ,   f o r   e x a m p l e   ‘e n t r y - l e v e l   c o m m i t -
m e nt ’,  ‘a c t i o n s   to   co n s e r ve   s o i l ’,   e tc. ,   s o m e 
o f   w h i c h   a r e   f u r t h e r   d i v i d e d   i n t o   s u b -
c a t e g o r i e s   ( s e e   C o m m o n   M o n i t o r i n g   a n d 
E v a l u a t i o n   Fr a m e w o r k   ( C M E F )   H a n d b o o k 
G u i d a n c e   N o t e   H ) .   M a n a g i n g   A u t h o r i t i e s 
a r e   e x p e c t e d   t o   a g g r e g a t e   d a t a   o n   c o n -
t r a c t s   a c c o rd i n g   t o   t h e s e   c a t e g o r i e s.  T h i s 
m e a n s   t h a t   i t   i s   p o s s i b l e   t o   d i s t i n g u i s h 
b e t w e e n   d i f f e r e n t   t y p e s   o f   s c h e m e s ,   f o r 
example light schemes (such as entr y-level 
s c h e m e s )   a n d   m o r e   d e m a n d i n g   c o m m i t -
m e n t s   ( s u c h   a s   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g ) .   C M E F 
m o n i t o r i n g   i n f o r m a t i o n   c a n   b e   e x t r a c t e d 
fo r   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s c h e m e s   a s   a   w h o l e, 
or  for  any sp ec if ic s ub - c atego r y.

As the monitor ing framewor k does include 
a   c e r t a i n   d i f fe r e n t i a t i o n   o f   t h e   a g r i - e nv i -
ronmental commitments’ categor ies, M em-
b e r   St ate s   s h o u l d   m a k e   b e t te r   u s e   o f   s u c h 
o p t i o n s   i n   m o n i t o r i n g   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t . 
Any other differentiation post-2013 should 
n o t   i n c r e a s e   t h e   c o m p l e x i t y   a n d   a d m i n -
i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t ’s 
 mana gement.

B ox 	2
T h e   a g g r e g a t i o n   o f   t o t a l   c o n t r a c t s / a r e a s 
g i v e s   a n   o v e r v i e w   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
c o m m i t m e n t s .   T h e   C o m m o n   M o n i t o r i n g 
a n d   E v a l u a t i o n   Fr a m e wo r k   (C M E F )   i n d i c a -
to r s   a l s o   p rov i d e   fo r   s u b - d i v i s i o n s   re l ate d 
t o   t h e   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i v e s   o f   s c h e m e s , 
w h i c h   a l l o w   m o r e   d e t a i l e d   e x a m i n a t i o n /
a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   s i t u at i o n .   B o t h   a p p ro a c h e s 
are needed to provide a full pic ture of how 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   s u p p o r t 
th e ru ral environ ment.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

48.
W h e r e   a p p r o p r i a t e ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e 
e n c o u r a g e d   a n d   e x p e c t e d   t o   g o   b e y o n d 
t h e   C o m m o n   M o n i t o r i n g   a n d   E v a l u a -
t i o n   F r a m e w o r k   ( C M E F )   a n d   i m p l e m e n t 
a d d i t i o n a l   a p p r o a c h e s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   t o 
a d d r e s s   p r o g r a m m e - s p e c i f i c   i s s u e s ,   s u c h 
a s   t h o s e   m e n t i o n e d   h e r e .   B e s t   p r a c t i c e 
e x a m p l e s   i n   t h i s   d o m a i n   a r e   s h a r e d   v i a 
t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   e x p e r t   n e t w o r k .   M o r e o -
v e r,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n t i n u o u s l y   s t r i v e s 
t o   r e f i n e   a p p r o p r i a t e   m e t h o d o l o g i e s   a n d 
approaches. 

First and foremost, the CMEF needs to pro -
v i d e   d at a   t h at   i s   s t a n d a rd i s e d   a n d   co m p a -
r a b l e   a t   E U   l e v e l .   W h i l e   t h e y   c a n   b e   v e r y 
we l l   s u i te d   to   t h e   co n d i t i o n s   i n   i n d i v i d u a l 
M ember States or regions, in many cases, if 
t ra n s fe r re d   to   t h e   E U   l e ve l,   s p e c i f i c   m o n i -
t o r i n g   p r a c t i c e s   w o u l d   n o t   d e l i v e r   m e a n -
ing ful  infor matio n.

49.
Please see  re pl ies to p o int s 46 a nd  4 8 .

50.
T h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   i n d e e d   i n v i t e d   t o 
m e a s u r e   a n d   m o n i t o r   a d d i t i o n a l   i n d i c a -
tors. B est prac tices in this domain are con -
sidered by th e eval u atio n exp er t   ne t wor k .

T h e   C o m m o n   M o n i t o r i n g   a n d   E v a l u a t i o n 
F r a m e w o r k   ( C M E F )   c a n n o t   i n c o r p o r a t e 
i n d i c ato r s   b a s e d   o n   p a r t i c u l a r   s p e c i e s   d u e 
to the broad range of different ecosystems 
i n   t h e   E U.   Fo r   i n s t a n c e ,   a   v e r y   i m p o r t a n t 
s p e c i e s   i n   a   g i ve n   a re a   ( i n   t e r m s   o f   b i o d i -
ve r s i t y,   s c a rc i t y   … )   m i g ht   b e   e i t h e r   t r i v i a l 
or  non - existe nt  in ano th er area.

64

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

B ox	 3
Please s ee th e reply  to point  2 7 .

5 1.
Th e   e l e m e n t s   m e n t i o n e d   by   t h e   Co u r t   a re 
p a r t   o f   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s / a c t i o n s   w h i c h 
f a r m e r s   h a v e   c o m m i t t e d   t o   u n d e r   a   s p e -
cific  agr i- environ ment  s ch eme. 

5 4.
A   d a t a b a s e   c o l l e c t i n g   e x a m p l e s   o f   i n t e r -
e s t i n g   c a s e s   s t u d i e s   ( r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
p r o g r a m m e   p r o j e c t   d a t a b a s e )   d e v e l o p e d 
j o i n t l y   w i t h   t h e   N a t i o n a l   R u r a l   N e t w o r k s 
w i l l   b e   p u b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   e n d   o f   M a y   2 0 1 1 
o n   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   N e t wo r k   fo r   R u ra l   D e ve l -
o p m e n t   ( E N   R D )   w e b s i t e .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   a 
n e w   s e r i e s   o f   b r o c h u r e s   w i t h   e x a m p l e s 
f u n d e d   u n d e r   Eu ro p e a n   Agr i c u l t u r a l   Fu n d 
f o r   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t   ( E A F R D )   h a s   b e e n 
l a u n c h e d   ( t h e   f i r s t   t wo   a re   av a i l a b l e   f ro m 
th e E N R D) .

5 6.
G o o d   p r a c t i c e s   a r e   a   f o c a l   p o i n t   o f   a l l 
Eu ro p e a n   N e t wo r k   fo r   R u r a l   D e ve l o p m e n t 
( E N   R D)   a c t i o n s   a n d   d i s s e m i n ate d   t h ro u g h 
t h e   v a r i o u s   p u b l i c a t i o n s   i s s u e d   a n d   s e m i-
nars organised. There is no cur rent specific 
a c t i v i t y   o n   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   m e a s u r e s 
( A E M )   b u t   s e v e r a l   a c t i v i t i e s   c o n t a i n   A E M 
case st ud ies. 

T h e   m o s t   r e l e v a n t   a c t i v i t y   i s   t h e   a n a l y s i s 
b y   t h e   T h e m a t i c   Wo r k i n g   G r o u p   ( T W G )   3 
o n   P u b l i c   G o o d s   a n d   P u b l i c   I n t e r v e n -
t i o n ,   i . e.   t h e   co ntex t   i n   w h i c h   t h e   A E M   a re 
i m p l e m e n t e d .   A   c a s e   s t u d y   o n   A E M ,   f r o m 
w h i c h   l e s s o n s   c a n   b e   l e a r n e d ,   h a s   b e e n 
c o n d u c t e d   b y   t h e   T W G   3   i n   c o n s u l t a t i o n 
w i t h   t h e   E N   R D   C o o r d i n a t i o n   c o m m i t t e e . 
A   b ro c h u re   w i l l   b e   p ro d u ce d.   Ca s e   s t u d i e s 
by   t h e  T W G   4   o n   D e l i ve r y   M e c h a n i s m s   a re 
c o n d u c t e d   o n   t h e   l e v e l   o f   r u r a l   d e v e l o p -
m e nt   p ro gra m m e s   ( R D P )   i n   o rd e r   to   a s s e s s 
t h e   w h o l e   d e l i ve r y   s ys te m ,   b u t   t h e   i d e nt i-
f i c a t i o n   o f   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a -
t i o n   o f   A E M   h a s   re ce i ve d   p a r t i c u l a r   at te n -
tion .

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

57.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   p u t   e v e n   m o r e 
e m p h a s i s   o n   t h e   n e e d   t o   e s t a b l i s h   a 
s t ro n g e r   l i n k   b e t we e n   t h e   i m p l e m e nt at i o n 
o f   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   m e a s u r e s   a n d 
p rov i s i o n   o f   a d e q u ate   t ra i n i n g   a n d   a d v i ce 
t o   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   t o   i m p r o v e   f a r m e r s ’ 
environ ment a l  awarenes s   and   th e i r   k nowl -
e d g e   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   c o m m i t m e n t s 
n e e d e d   f o r   t h e   b e t t e r   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
t h o s e   c o m m i t m e n t s .   S u c h   t r a i n i n g   a n d 
a d v i c e   s h o u l d   a l s o   b e   b a s e d   o n   t h e   e x p e -
r i e n c e   g a i n e d   f ro m   p re v i o u s   i m p l e m e n t a -
tions of agr i- e nv iron ment o perat i o n s.

58.
A l t h o u g h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a re   n o t   re q u i re d 
t o   p r o v i d e   d e t a i l e d   f i g u r e s   a n d   a i d   c a l -
c u l a t i o n s   i n   t h e i r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
grammes (RDP), most M ember States, upon 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   re q u e s t ,   d e l i ve re d   t h e m 
t o   f a c i l i t a t e   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   t h e   a i d 
amou nt s p ro p o sed. 

I t   i s   t h e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   M e m b e r 
States to ensure that appropr iate exper tise 
co n ce r n i n g   t h e   a d e q u a c y   a n d   a cc u r a c y   o f 
t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n s   o f   p a y m e n t s   i s   p r o v i d e d 
by   i n d e p e n d e nt   s e r v i ce s.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n 
r e l i e s   o n   t h i s   k i n d   o f   e x p e r t i s e ,   w h i c h   i s 
e x p e c t e d   t o   t a k e   a p p r o p r i a t e   a c c o u n t   o f 
regional and local conditions. The Commis-
s i o n   p e r f o r m s   a   g e n e r a l   p l a u s i b i l i t y   a n d 
consistenc y check of the calculation. How-
e v e r,   i t   d o e s   n o t   e n g a g e   i n   a   f u l l - f l e d g e d 
r e c a l c u l a t i o n ,   a s   s u c h   a n   e x e r c i s e   w o u l d 
r e q u i r e   s u b s t a n t i a l   r e s o u r c e s   a n d   e x p e r -
t i s e,   i n c l u d i n g   d e t a i l e d   k n o w l e d g e   o f   t h e 
national and regional specificities of M em-
b e r   S t a t e s ,   a n d   w o u l d   n o t   b e   i n   l i n e   w i t h 
th e pr incip le  of  s ub s idiar it y.    

6565

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

5 9–6 0 .
T h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   o f   a i d   a m o u n t s   i s   t h e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d 
i s   c e r t i f i e d   b y   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   b o d y.   T h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   u n d e r t a k e   s y s t e m -
a t i c   c o n t r o l s   ( r e c a l c u l a t i o n )   o f   t h o s e   c a l -
c u l a t i o n s .   H o w e v e r,   i n   c a s e s   o f   d o u b t s 
c o n c e r n i n g   a i d   a m o u n t s   p r o p o s e d ,   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   we re   a s k e d   t o   p rov i d e   d e t a i l e d 
i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   c a l c u l a t i o n s   a n d   r e v i s e 
th em if  n eces sar y. 

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   A n d a l u c í a ,   a r i t h m e t i c   m i s -
t a k e s   w i t h   n o   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   f i n a l   v a l u e 
o f   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t   h a ve   a l re a d y   b e e n   c o r -
re c te d.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   re q u e s te d   t h e 
M a n a g i n g   A u t h o r i t y   t o   c l a r i f y ,   p r o v i d e 
a d d i t i o n a l   j u s t i f i c at i o n s   fo r,   a n d   e ve n   co n -
s i d e r   t h e   a d j u s t m e n t   o f   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t 
f o r   s o m e   i s s u e s   i d e n t i f i e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t , 
including the consideration of cost savings 
l i n k e d   t o   a   l o w e r   u s e   o f   f e r t i l i s e r s   i n   t h e 
c a l c u l at i o n   o f   t h e   a i d   a m o u nt ;   t h e   re p l y   i s 
still pen ding.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a s k e d   t h e 
 Pi e m o n t e   a u t h o r i t i e s   t o   r e v i s e   t h e   c a l c u -
l at i o n   o f   a i d   a m o u nt s   at   s e ve ra l   o cc a s i o n s 
e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   a n d   a re   aw a i t i n g   s u b m i s s i o n 
of th e revised  calculation.

A c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   P o l i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s ,   t h e 
2 0 0 1 – 0 3   f i g u r e s   w e r e   u s e d   b e c a u s e   t h e 
m o s t   re ce nt   d at a   wa s   n o t   ava i l a b l e,   d u e   to 
a c han ge  of t he met hodology.

6 1.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c h e c k e d   t h e   l e v e l   o f   t h e 
e s t a b l i s h e d   b a s e l i n e ,   t h e   r e a s o n i n g   a n d 
m e t h o d o l o g y   o r   t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   o f   t h e 
re d u c t i o n   o f   n i t ro g e n   fe r t i l i s a t i o n   a g a i n s t 
t h e   i n fo r m at i o n   p rov i d e d   by   a n   i n d e p e n d -
e n t   b o d y   ( I n s t i t u t   n a t i o n a l   d e   l a   r e c h e r -
c h e   a g r o n o m i q u e   [ I N R A ] ,   Av i g n o n )   w h i c h 
c e r t i f i e d   t h e   a c c u r a c y   o f   t h e   b a s e l i n e 
( s e e   r e p l y   t o   B o x   4   a n d   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l -
o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e   fo r   Fr a n c e,   ve r s i o n   5 , 
pp.  1 99 –2 00 ). 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

66

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   t a k e n   n o t e   o f   t h e 
Co u r t ’s   f i n d i n g s   a n d   w i l l   re q u i re   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e   t o   t a k e   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   m e a s u r e s 
to address t he s it uation.

B ox 	4
Please see  t he rep l y to 61.

62.
Acco rd i n g   to   A r t .   3 9 ( 4 )   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   1 6 9 8 / 2 0 0 5 ,   t h e   p a y m e n t s   s h a l l   b e 
g r a n t e d   a n n u a l l y   a n d   s h a l l   c o v e r   a d d i -
tional costs and income foregone resulting 
from the co mmitment made. 

I f   t h e   b a s i s   f o r   p r e m i u m   c a l c u l a t i o n s 
c h a n g e s   a f t e r   t h e   o r i g i n a l   c a l c u l a t i o n s 
h a v e   b e e n   m a d e ,   p r e m i u m   a d j u s t m e n t s 
a re   p e r m i t t e d   a n d   j u s t i f i e d   s o   a s   t o   a l l o w 
m i n i m i s i n g   u n d e r-   a n d   ove rco m p e n s at i o n . 
T h e r e f o r e ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t h e   p o s -
s i b i l i t y   t o   a d j u s t   t h e i r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
 premiums.

A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   c a s e   m e n t i o n e d   b y   t h e 
Co u r t,   t h e   a n n u a l   p ro gre s s   re p o r t   fo r   r u ra l 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   2 0 0 8   ( p p .   3 3 – 3 4 )   s t a t e s 
t h a t   t h e   m e a s u r e   i n   q u e s t i o n   h a d   o n l y   a 
moderate success among potentially inter -
e s te d   f a r m e r s   d u e   to   a   g l o b a l   m a r k e t   p a r-
t i c u l a r l y   f avo u ra b l e   to   a ra b l e   c ro p s,   w h i c h 
m a d e   t h e   a i d   l e s s   a t t r a c t i v e .   S o,   i n   2 0 0 8 , 
t h e   m e a s u r e   w a s   n o t   r e n e w e d   f o r   n e w 
commitment.

H o w e v e r,   t h e   a n n u a l   p r o g r e s s   r e p o r t   f o r 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   2 0 0 9   ( p .   3 9 )   m e n -
t i o n s   t h a t   t h e   m e a s u r e   w a s   r e o p e n e d   i n 
2 0 0 9   a n d   2 9   f i r s t- t i m e   a p p l i c a nt s   a re   co m -
mit ted.

I n   t h e   m o d i f i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   F r e n c h   r u r a l 
d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e   ( R D P ) ,   i n   M a y 
2 0 0 8 ,   i t   w a s   f o r e s e e n   t h a t   t h e   a m o u n t s 
o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p r e m i u m s   c o u l d   b e 
r e v i s e d   u n d e r   t h e   f o l l o w i n g   c o n d i t i o n s : 
t h e   re v i e w   o f   t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   c o n c e r n s   a l l 
m a j o r   e l e m e n t s   o f   t h e   p r e m i u m   c a l c u l a -
t i o n ,   t h e   ave ra g e   f i g u re s   o f   t h e   t wo   l a te s t 
years are used, an account of the uptake of 
t h e   m e a s u r e s   i n   q u e s t i o n   s h o u l d   b e   p r o -
v i d e d ,   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e   h a v e   t o   r e v i e w 
t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   e l e m e n t s   e v e r y   t w o   y e a r s 
a n d   n o t i f y   t h e   co n c l u s i o n s   to   t h e   Co m m i s -
sion. A review clause will be included both 
i n   a l l   n e w   co n t r a c t s   a n d   i n   t h o s e   o n g o i n g 
c o n t r a c t s   w h e r e   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a c c e p t 
to be nefit  from  t he revised prem ium s.

6 3.
A r t .   5 3   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 9 7 4 / 2 0 0 6 
s t i p u l a t e s   t h a t   c a l c u l a t i o n s   a r e   t o   b e   d i f -
f e r e n t i a t e d   s o   a s   t o   t a k e   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
regional or local site conditions and ac tual 
l a n d   u s e  ‘a s   a p p r o p r i a t e’.   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
a re,   h o we ve r,   re q u e s t e d   t o   p re s e n t   i n   t h e 
c a l c u l a t i o n s   f a c t o r s   t o   d i f f e r e n t i a t e   t h e 
c a l c u l a t i o n s ’  f i g u r e s   ( e . g .   a c c o r d i n g   t o 
h om og enous agr icultural regions ).

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   i n   c a s e s   o f 
s i g n i f i c a n t   d i f f e r e n c e s   b e t w e e n   r e g i o n s 
w i t h   re g a rd   t o   t h e i r   c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s   ( e nv i -
r o n m e n t a l ,   g e o g r a p h i c a l ,   c l i m a t i c )   d i f -
f e r e n t i a t i o n   i n   a i d   a m o u n t s   s h o u l d   b e 
e n v i s a g e d .   H o w e v e r,   t h i s   w o u l d   c e r t a i n l y 
car r y with it additional administrative bur-
d e n .  T h e r e f o r e ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   m u s t   t a k e 
a c c o u n t   o f   a   t r a d e - o f f   b e t w e e n   t h e   b e n -
e f i t s   a n d   c o s t s   r e l a t e d   t o   a i d   a m o u n t   d i f -
ferentiation.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

6767

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

64.
A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   c a s e   r e f e r r e d   t o   b y   t h e 
Cour t, the Commission will ask the M anag -
i n g   A u t h o r i t y   o f   t h e   p r o g r a m m e   t o   m o d -
i f y   t h e   m e a s u re  ‘i n t e g r a t e d   p ro d u c t i o n   o f 
o l i v e   t r e e s ’  i n   o r d e r   t o   r e f l e c t   t h e   d i f f e r -
ences  bet ween  ir r ig ated  and  no n-i r r i g ated 
a r e a s .   T h i s   d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n   i s   a l r e a d y   w e l l 
t a k e n   i n t o   a c c o u n t   i n   n e w l y   p r o p o s e d 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u re s   fo r   A n d a -
l u c í a ,   s u c h   a s   ‘ I n t e g r a t e d   p r o d u c t i o n   o f 
sugar beet ’.

6 7.
Ai d   l e ve l s   c a n n o t   b e   f i xe d   s o   a s   to   a c h i e ve 
a cer tain par ticipation target. Ar ticle 39 of 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 6 9 8 / 2 0 0 5   s t i p u l a t e s 
t h a t ,   a s   r e g a r d s   p a y m e n t   l e v e l s   p e r   h e c -
t a re,   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   m u s t   b e 
b a s e d   o n   c o s t s   i n c u r re d   a n d   i n c o m e   fo re -
g o n e   a n d   d o   n o t   a l l o w   f o r   i n c e n t i v e   e l e -
m e n t s .  T h o s e   a m o u n t s   a r e   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y 
a p p l y i n g   a   s t a n d a rd   co s t   a p p ro a c h ,   w h i c h 
i s   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   n e e d   to   re s p e c t   t h e   p ro -
por tion alit y of adminis trative  e ffor t s.

A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   a s   a   w h o l e   i s   e x p e c t e d 
t o   c o n t r i b u t e ,   t o g e t h e r   w i t h   o t h e r   m e a s -
u re s,   t o   t h e   g e n e r a l   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   o b j e c -
t i v e s   s e t   a t   p r o g r a m m e   l e v e l .   B a s i c   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   a r e   p a r t   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t . 
T h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i s 
ass essed at measure and axis leve l.

6 8.
2 0 0 8   w a s   t h e   f i r s t   y e a r   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n -
t a t i o n   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i n   t h e   f r a m e -
wo r k   o f   t h e   p ro g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 
in Poland, in which only the three simplest 
v a r i a n t s   we re   i n   p l a c e.  Th a t   ye a r   d o e s   n o t 
r e f l e c t   t h e   a c t u a l   t e r r i t o r i a l   c o v e r a g e   o f 
th e agr i- environment meas ure. 

Th e   a i d   a m o u n t s   a re   b e l ow   t h e   c a l c u l a te d 
c e i l i n g   o f   a d d i t i o n a l   c o s t s / i n c o m e   f o r e -
g o n e   a s   Po l i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s   w a n t   t o   c o v e r 
t h e   m a x i m u m   n u m b e r   o f   i n t e r e s t e d   b e n -
e f i c i a r i e s   t h u s   a c h i e v i n g   t h e   l a r g e s t   e nv i -
ronm ental impac t.

S ee a lso t he rep l y to p oint 63.

65– 66.
F r a n c e   o p t e d   f o r   u s i n g   a   u n i q u e   a i d 
a m o u n t   b a s e d   o n   t h e   r e f e r e n c e   p r i c e   o f 
the fodder unit for the mountainous zones 
b u t   a l s o   t h e   l owe s t   l e ve l   o f   p ro d u c t i o n   i n 
t h e   d i f fe re nt   re gi o n s   ( d at a   I N R A ,   Av i gn o n ) 
n a m e l y   6 t n   D M .  T h i s   c h o i c e   w a s   b a s e d   o n 
t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e   c o m m i t -
t e d   s u r f a c e s   a r e   l o c a t e d   i n   m o u n t a i n o u s 
zones (M assif Central, Alps, P yrenees, Jura) 
(mid-ter m evalu atio n (MT E),  p. 9 3 ).  M o re o -
ve r,   Fr a n ce   a l s o   m a d e   t h i s   c h o i ce   i n   o rd e r 
to increase t he  readab il it y o f th e   me asu re.

A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   Po l i s h   c a s e ,   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   s e r v i ce s   d i s c u s s e d   t h i s   i s s u e   w i t h   t h e 
re s p e c t i ve   a u t h o r i t i e s   w h o   d e c i d e d   t h at   i t 
w a s   n o t   fe a s i b l e   t o   i n t r o d u c e   d i f fe r e n t i a -
t i o n   i n   a i d   a m o u nt s   d u e   to   t h e   s u b s t a nt i a l 
e x t r a   co s t s   i nvo l ve d.  Th e re fo re,   w h i l e   c a l -
c u l a t i n g   t h e   a i d   a m o u n t s   fo r   s e ve r a l   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   w h e r e   t h e   c o m m i t m e n t   c o v e r s 
b o t h   a r a b l e   l a n d   a n d   p e r m a n e n t   p a s t u re s 
b u t   t h e   p a y m e n t   i s   o n l y   l i m i t e d   t o   a r a b l e 
l a n d ,   a n   a v e r a g e   S t a n d a r d   G r o s s   M a r g i n 
( S G M )   w a s   u s e d .   P o l i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s   a l s o 
p o i n t e d   t o   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   s e t t i n g   t h e   b o r -
d e r s   o f   e l i g i b l e   a re a s   b e n e f i t i n g   f ro m   d i f-
f e r e n t   a i d   a m o u n t s .   S e e   a l s o   t h e   r e p l y   t o 
p o i n t   7 9   o n   t h e   n e g a t i v e   e x p e r i e n c e s   o f 
th e 200 4–06 p rogramming  p er io d.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

68

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

69.
R e g a rd i n g   t h e   Swe d i s h   c a s e   m e nt i o n e d   by 
the Cour t, it is true that the aid rate for the 
sub -measure R ipar ian Str ips was increased 
f r o m   1  0 0 0   S E K / h a   t o   3  0 0 0   S E K / h a 
i n   t h e   6 t h   m o d i f i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   S w e d i s h 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e   ( R D P ) .   I n 
t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p e r i o d   t h e   a i d   r a t e   h a d   b e e n 
s e t   t o   2  7 0 0   S E K / h a   a n d   t h e   r i s k   w a s   h i g h 
t h a t   t h e   d e c r e a s e d   r a t e   w o u l d   p r e v e n t 
f a r m e r s   f r o m   c o n t i n u i n g   w i t h   t h i s   s u b -
m e a s u re.   R e c a l c u l a t i o n s   a l s o   s h owe d   t h a t 
t h e r e   w a s   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   u n d e r   c o m p e n s a -
t i o n   at   t h e   l owe r   rate   s e t   i n   t h e   b e gi n n i n g 
o f   t h e   2 0 0 7 – 1 3   p e r i o d .  T h e r e fo r e,   t h e   a i d 
rate was increased along with the outcome 
i n d i c a t o r s   t h a t   we re   i n c re a s e d   f ro m   3  5 0 0 
u s e r s   t o   4  5 0 0   u s e r s   a n d   f r o m   7  0 0 0   h a   t o 
9  0 0 0   h a .  Th e   re v i s e d   a i d   ra te s   a re   s u b j e c t 
to a biannu al rev iew.

70.
A g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i s   t o   p r o v i d e   s u p p o r t 
for introducing agr icultural prac tices com -
p a t i b l e   w i t h   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t   b u t   a l s o   t o 
e n c o u r a g e   t h e   c o n t i n u a t i o n   o f   s u c h   p r a c -
t i c e s   w h e re   t h e re   i s   a   r i s k   o f   l o s i n g   t h e m . 
E xc l u d i n g   ce r t a i n   zo n e s   f ro m   t h e   a p p l i c a -
tion of agr i- environment, on the basis that 
t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   t h e r e i n   a r e 
l e s s   a c u t e   t h a n   i n   o t h e r   a re a s,   c o u l d   l e a d 
to   i n c re a s i n g   t h e   p re s s u re   o n   t h e   e nv i ro n -
ment  in t ho se  zo nes.

72.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   a gr i - e nv i ro n -
m e n t   s h o u l d   a d d r e s s   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
p r o b l e m s   a n d   n e e d s ,   b u t   a l s o   t h e   o p p o r -
t u n i t i e s   a n d   p o te nt i a l s   i d e nt i f i e d   by   M e m -
b e r   St ate s   i n   t h e i r   p ro gra m m e s.   I n s o f a r   a s 
t h e s e   p re s s u re s   h ave   a   re gi o n a l   c h a ra c te r, 
t h e y   s h o u l d   b e   a d d r e s s e d   b y   a d e q u a t e 
s c h e m e s .   H o w e v e r,   t h i s   d o e s   n o t   i m p l y 
that schemes available throughout the ter -
r itor y canno t fu l fil t his fu nc tio n . 

M e a s u r e s   a r e   o f t e n   a p p l i e d   t o   t h e   w h o l e 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e’s   t e r r i t o r y 
w i t h o u t   u n d e r m i n i n g   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
g o a l s .   M o r e o v e r,   m a n y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
define eligibilit y cr iter ia and commitments 
f o r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s c h e m e s   i n   s u c h 
a   w a y   t h a t   i t   n a r r o w s   d o w n   t h e   s c o p e   o f 
p o te nt i a l   a p p l i c a nt s,   a n d / o r   e s t a b l i s h   p r i-
orit y criteria for entering agri- environment 
w h i c h   p r i o r i t i s e   a r e a s   w h i c h   p r i m a r i l y 
should be selec ted to attain the respec tive 
objec tives.

7 3.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   a   f u r t h e r 
improvement regarding better targeting of 
agri- environment is necessar y and is envis -
a g e d   i n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   t h e   c o m m o n 
agricultural polic y post-2013. However, the 
cur rent framewor k requires M ember States 
t o   p r o v i d e   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   t h r o u g h o u t 
t h e i r   t e r r i t o r i e s   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e i r 
s p e c i f i c   n e e d s .  T h e   n e e d s   c a n   s o m e t i m e s 
b e   w i d e s p r e a d   a n d   n o t   l i m i t e d   t o   c e r t a i n 
areas  on ly.

7 5.
T h e   E U   i s   c h a r a c t e r i s e d   b y   a   d i v e r s i t y   o f 
c o n d i t i o n s   a n d   d i f f e r e n t   s o l u t i o n s   a r e 
a p p r o p r i a t e   i n   d i f f e r e n t   r e g i o n s .   I n   s o m e 
c a s e s,   i t   i s   a p p ro p r i ate   to   s u p p o r t   p a r t i c u -
l a r   m a n a g e m e n t   p r a c t i c e s   w h e r e v e r   t h e y 
occ ur.

7 7.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t a r g e t i n g   i s 
an  impor tant element of  agr i- envi ron me nt 
polic y. The calculation of agr i- environment 
payments can reflec t regional specificities. 
H owe ve r,   i t   i s   e v i d e n t   t h a t   t h i s   i s   b u rd e n -
s o m e   a n d   c a u s e s   h i g h e r   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
costs. M ember States must str ike a balance 
b e t w e e n   t h e   c o s t   o f   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
t h i s   a p p r o a c h   a n d   t h e   e x p e c t e d   e n v i r o n -
menta l be nefit s.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

6969

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

8 1.
A l t h o u g h   m a n y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   e s t a b l i s h 
p r i o r i t y   c r i te r i a   fo r   e n te r i n g   a gr i - e nv i ro n -
m e n t   ( e . g.   p r i v i l e g i n g   N a t u r a   2 0 0 0   a r e a s ) 
w h i c h   p r i o r i t i s e   a r e a s   t o   b e   p r i m a r i l y 
s e l e c te d   to   a t t a i n   t h e   s u b - m e a s u re s’  m a i n 
objec tives, caref ully  define d e ligi bilit y c r i -
te r i a   c a n   s e r ve   t h e   s a m e   p u r p o s e   a s   s e l e c -
tion  cr iter ia.

S ee  also the  reply  to 8 0.

8 2.
S ee  th e replie s to points 8 0 an d 8 1 .

8 3.
Given that M ember States establish prelim-
inar y targets at sub -measure level, exceed-
i n g   t h e   t a r g e t   o f   o n e   s u b - m e a s u r e   d o e s 
n o t   l e a d   t o   f a i l i n g   t o   a c h i e v e   t h e   t a r g e t s 
set  for  othe r sub -m eas ures.

H o we ve r,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a re   n o t   re q u i re d 
t o   s e t   t a r g e t s   a t   s u b - m e a s u r e   l e v e l .   T h e y 
r e p o r t   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   o n l y   i n d i c a t o r s 
a n d   t a r g e t s   e s t a b l i s h e d   a t   t h e   m e a s u r e s ' 
l e ve l.  Th e re fo re,   s u b - m e a s u re s’  t a rg e t s   a re 
only indicative and can be subjec t to mod-
i f i c a t i o n .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t 
t h i s   k i n d   o f   f l e x i b i l i t y   i s   n e e d e d   t o   a l l o w 
a d a p t i n g   s u b - m e a s u re   t a rg e t s   i n   c a s e   o f   a 
c h a n g e   o f   re l e v a n t   c i rc u m s t a n ce s.   M o d i f i-
c a t i o n s   o f   t h e   p ro g r a m m e s   s e r ve   t h e   p u r -
pose of adaptin g th e  program mes’ co nte nt 
to M ember  St ates’ c han gin g s it uati ons.

8 5.
T h e   E u r o p e a n   A g r i c u l t u r a l   Fu n d   f o r   R u r a l 
D e ve l o p m e n t   ( E A F R D)   co n t r i b u t i o n   ra te   i s 
e s t a b l i s h e d   a t   t h e   l e v e l   o f   e a c h   a x i s .   T h e 
rate   fo r   a x i s   2 ,   b e i n g   h i g h e r   t h a n   fo r   o t h e r 
a x e s ,   r e f l e c t s   t h e   i m p o r t a n c e   o f   e n v i r o n -
m e n t a l   m a t t e r s .   M o r e o v e r,   a c c o r d i n g   t o 
t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   m i n i m u m 
s p e n d i n g   p e r   a x i s ,   a x i s   2   m u s t   b e   a l l o -
c ate d   at   l e a s t   2 5  %   o f   t h e   E A F R D   to t a l   co n -
t r i b u t i o n   i n   e a c h   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
gram me.    

78.
S ome rural development programmes have 
co n s i d e re d   t h e   d e s i ra b l e   d e gre e   o f   t a rg e t -
i n g   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a n   a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   co s t s 
a n d   b e n e f i t s   i n v o l v e d ,   a l t h o u g h   p e r h a p s 
n o t   t h o s e   co n s i d e re d   i n   t h i s   a u d i t.     R o m a-
nia, for example, targets high nature value 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   p a y m e n t s   o n   a   g e o -
gr a p h i c a l   b a s i s,   a n d   t h e   e l i gi b l e   a re a s   a re 
e s t a b l i s h e d   u s i n g   m a c r o - l e v e l   d a t a   ( l a n d 
c o v e r   a t   c o m m u n e   l e v e l ) ,   s i n c e   i t   w o u l d 
h a v e   b e e n   t o o   c o s t l y   i n   r e l a t i o n   t o   t h e 
p a y m e n t s   t o   b e   m a d e ,   t o   d e t e r m i n e   e l i -
g i b i l i t y   a t   a   s m a l l e r   s c a l e ,   a l t h o u g h   t h a t 
would have b ee n more p recis e.

79.
C e r t a i n   s u b - m e a s u r e s   c a n   b e   a p p l i e d   t o 
t h e   w h o l e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e 
a r e a ,   b u t   c a n   s t i l l   b e   t a r g e t e d   t o   s p e c i f i c 
regions wit hin  t hat  area.

A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   c a s e   o f   Po l a n d ,   t h e   z o n a l 
a p p r o a c h   w a s   a b a n d o n e d   d u e   t o   t h e 
a d m i n i s t rat i ve   co s t s   i t   h a d   i n c u r re d   i n   t h e 
per iod 2004–0 6.

80.
A l l   f a r m e r s   s i g n i n g   u p   t o   a   c e r t a i n   m e a s -
ure alread y ful fil  th e same el igib i l i t y c r ite -
r i a   a n d   re q u i re m e nt s,   w h i c h   a re   s u p p o s e d 
t o   p r o v i d e   e q u i v a l e n t   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
b e n e f i t s / s e r v i c e s .   T h u s   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n 
o f   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   i s   n o t   n e c e s s a r y   t o 
e n s u r e   t h e   m o s t   e f f i c i e n t   a n d   e f f e c t i v e 
w ay   o f   s p e n d i n g   u n d e r   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t . 
C a r e f u l l y   d e f i n e d   e l i g i b i l i t y   c o n d i t i o n s 
a n d ,   w h e r e   a p p r o p r i a t e ,   r e g i o n a l   t a r g e t -
i n g   c a n   s e r ve   t h e   s a m e   p u r p o s e,   n o r m a l l y 
at   m u c h   l e s s   co s t,   re d u c i n g   a d m i n i s t rat i ve 
b u r d e n ,   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e   s p e e d   o f   a p p r o v a l 
procedures and avoiding burden on poten -
t i a l l y   e l i g i b l e   b u t   u l t i m a t e l y   u n s u c c e s s f u l 
b e n e f i c i a r i e s.   O n l y   i f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   a p p l i -
c a t i o n s   e x c e e d s   t h e   a v a i l a b l e   b u d g e t , 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t o   a p p l y   a d d i t i o n a l 
mecha n isms.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

70

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

8 8.
T h e   c l e a r   a n d   w e l l   e s t a b l i s h e d   i n t e r v e n -
t i o n   l o g i c   j u s t i f y i n g   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f 
s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e i r   i n c l u s i o n   i n   t h e 
p ro g r a m m e   a s   we l l   a s   t h e i r   p ro p e r   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   e n s u r e s   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   o f   t h e 
s u b - m e a s u r e s   t o   d e l i v e r   t h e   e x p e c t e d 
e f fe c t s.   M u c h   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   re s e a rc h   a n d 
e v i d e n c e   i s   a v a i l a b l e   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s , 
who take this into account when designing 
t h e i r   p ro gra m m e s.   N e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   Co m-
m i s s i o n   a g re e s   t h a t   c e r t a i n   t y p e s   o f   a g r i -
e nv i ro n m e nt   o p e rat i o n s   wo u l d   m e r i t   m o re 
r e s e a r c h .   T h e   r e l a t i v e   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s 
would have to be considered before under -
t a k i n g   s u c h   a d d i t i o n a l   i nve s t i g at i o n s   s p e -
c i f i c a l l y   re l a t e d   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
par ticular agr i- environment sub -measures.

Th e   p e r i o d i c   e x t e r n a l   e v a l u a t i o n s   o f   r u r a l 
d e ve l o p m e nt   p ro gra m m e s   i n c l u d e   a s s e s s-
m e n t   o f   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   i m p a c t   o f   t h e 
p r o g r a m m e s ,   p a r t i c u l a r l y,   b u t   n o t   e x c l u -
s i v e l y,   i n   r e l a t i o n   t o   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
impac t indicators included in the Common 
M o n i t o r i n g   a n d   E v a l u a t i o n   F r a m e w o r k 
( C M E F ) .   T h e   e v a l u a t o r s   s e l e c t   m e t h o d s 
a p p ro p r i ate   to   t h e   m e a s u re s   a n d   s c h e m e s 
i m p l e m e n t e d   w i t h i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e,   t a k -
in g into account cost- effec tiven es s.

8 9.
S ee  reply  to  point 88 . 

9 1.
Th e   p u r p o s e   o f   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t   s u p p o r t 
i s   n o t   o n l y   to   a d d re s s   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p re s -
s u r e s   b u t   a l s o   t o   m a i n t a i n   a n d   e n h a n c e 
e nv i r o n m e n t a l   p o t e n t i a l s   a n d   o p p o r t u n i -
ties. 

L i n k i n g   t h e   c o - f i n a n c i n g   r a t e   t o   t h e   e nv i -
r o n m e n t a l   p o t e n t i a l   o f   a   s u b - m e a s u r e 
wo u l d   i n t ro d u ce   a n   e l e m e n t   o f   s u b j e c t i ve 
j u d g m e n t   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f 
e a c h   s u b - m e a s u re’s   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p o te n -
t i a l .   To   p r e v e n t   t h i s ,   c l e a r   c r i t e r i a   w o u l d 
n e e d   t o   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d .   G i v e n   t h e   l a r g e 
n u m b e r   o f   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e   w i d e 
d i v e r s i t y   o f   f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s   t h e y   r e f e r 
to,   t h i s   wo u l d   c re a t e   a   co n s i d e r a b l e   a d d i -
t i o n a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   a n d   s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y   i n c r e a s e   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e 
progra mmes.

86– 87.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   s t r o n g l y   i n   f a v o u r   o f 
collec tive approaches to agr i- environment 
objec tives and contrac ts. I n par ticular with 
re g a rd   t o   s o m e   o b j e c t i ve s,   s u c h   a s   d e ve l -
oping green infrastruc ture or building eco -
logical corr idors for connec tivit y pur poses, 
collec tive ac tions of several far mers in rel-
e va nt   a re a s   c a n   y i e l d   gre ate r   e nv i ro n m e n -
t a l   b e n e f i t s   t h a n   s e p a r a te   a c t i o n s   o f   i n d i -
vidual fa r me rs. 

However,  the   col lec tive  ap p roach   i s   a  rel a-
t i v e l y   n e w   a p p r o a c h   i n   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a -
t i o n   o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t .   I t   r e q u i r e s   a 
ce r t a i n   s t r u c t u re,   o rg a n i s at i o n ,   p rov i s i o n s 
o f   a d v i c e   a n d   i s   o f t e n   l i n k e d   t o   h i g h e r 
t r a n s a c t i o n   c o s t s .   I t   m a y   a l s o   b e   d i f f i c u l t 
to   e s t a b l i s h   co l l e c t i ve   co nt ra c t s   u n d e r   t h e 
c u r r e n t   r u l e s ,   s i n c e   t h e r e   h a s   t o   b e   j o i n t 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   f o r   r e s p e c t i n g   t h e   r u l e s . 
T h e r e f o r e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n t e n d s   t o 
a d d r e s s   t h e s e   i s s u e s   i n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f 
t h e   p o s t- 2 0 1 3   r u ra l   d e ve l o p m e nt   p o l i c y   i n 
order  to  fu r t her  fac il itate  the  im p l e me nta-
tion of the  col l ec tive ap pro ach.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

7171

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

France has chosen to target a large number 
o f   f a r m e r s   t h r o u g h   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
s u b - m e a s u re s   w i t h   t r a n s ve r s a l   o b j e c t i ve s. 
A t   t h e   s a m e   t i m e ,   i t   h a s   e s t a b l i s h e d   t a r -
ge ted  measures aimin g at  local  is s ue s  7.

R e g a rd i n g   Pi e m o nte,   a l t h o u g h   i n   t h e   r u ra l 
d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e   n o   f i n a n c i a l 
b r e a k d o w n   ( a l l o c a t i o n )   b y   s u b - m e a s u r e 
i s   e s t a b l i s h e d   w i t h i n   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t , 
l e s s   t h a n   4 0  %   o f   t h e   s u r f a ce   co n ce r n e d   by 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s h o u l d   b e   s u b j e c t   to   t h e 
integrated far ming sub -measure (and more 
o r   l e s s   5 0  %   o f   t h e   a g r i c u l t u r a l   h o l d i n g s ) . 
I n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   i n t e n s i v e   a g r i c u l t u r e , 
i n t e g r a t e d   f a r m i n g   i s   a   re a s o n a b l e   c h o i c e 
that can meet needs the best and bring the 
most  environmental benefits.

9 3.
M em ber State s present th eir  fin an c ial  plan 
b r o k e n   d o w n   b y   a x i s   a s   w e l l   a s   i n d i c a t i v e 
b u d g e t   b r e a k d o w n   b y   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
m e a s u r e s   f o r   t h e   t o t a l   p e r i o d .   A g r i - e n v i -
ronm ent is par t of th is  s truc ture. 

Th e   a n a l ys i s   o f   t h e   l i n k   b e t we e n   t h e   e nv i -
r o n m e n t a l   n e e d s   a n d   f u n d s   n e c e s s a r y 
t o   a d d r e s s   t h e m   i s   d o n e   a t   t h e   s t a g e   o f 
p r o g r a m m e s ’  p r e p a r a t i o n   a n d   a p p r o v a l . 
H owe ve r,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   c a n   m o d i f y   t h e i r 
b u d g e t ,   a l s o   a t   m e a s u r e   l e v e l ,   t o   r e f l e c t 
new fac tors and changes to circumstances. 
S u c h   m o d i f i c at i o n s   a re   s u b j e c t   to   n o t i f i c a -
tion to the Commission. The latter assesses 
t h e m   a g a i n s t   t h e i r   c o m p a t i b i l i t y   w i t h   t h e 
N a t i o n a l   S t r a t e g y   P l a n   ( N S P )   a n d   l e g i s l a -
tion . 

7  The rationality for the adoption of these choices is explained 
in the chapter on agro-environmental farming (chapter 5.3.2.1.4, 

pp. 189–196, PDRH, version 5, tome 2).

T h e   f i n d i n g   o f   t h e   C o u r t   r e g a r d i n g   t h e 
a b s e n c e   o f   a   l i n k   b e t w e e n   t h e   p r o p o s e d 
s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s -
s u r e s   m i g h t   r e f e r   t o   s i t u a t i o n s   w h e r e 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e n t   i s   t a rg e te d   a t   m a i n t a i n -
i n g   a n d   e n h a n c i n g   e x i s t i n g   e n v i r o n m e n -
t a l   p o t e n t i a l s   a n d   o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,   s u c h   a s 
t h e   p o te n t i a l   to   m a i n t a i n   w a te r   q u a l i t y   i n 
wate r   c atc h m e nt   a re a s   p rov i d i n g   d r i n k i n g 
w a te r,   o r   e n h a n c i n g   b i o d i ve r s i t y   s t a t u s   i n 
areas where b as ic t arg ets  have b e e n  met. 

S ee a lso t he rep l y to p oint 70.

92.
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 6 9 8 / 2 0 0 5   d o e s   n o t 
s e t   a n y   o b l i g a t i o n s / r u l e s   f o r   M e m b e r 
S t a te s   w i t h   re g a rd   to   t h e   b u d g e t   l e ve l   fo r 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t .   T h e   b u d g e t   s h o u l d   b e 
a d a p te d   to   t h e   n e e d s   a n d   o b j e c t i ve s   to   b e 
m e t .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   w h e n   p l a n n i n g   t h e i r 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   m e a s u r e s   a n d   b u d g e t s 
a l l o c a t e d   t o   t h e m ,   r e f e r   t o   p a s t   e x p e r i -
e n c e s   a n d   p e r f o r m a n c e   a s   w e l l   a s   t o   t h e 
r e s u l t s   t h e y   e x p e c t   f r o m   t h e   p l a n n e d 
m e a s u r e s .   I f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   c o n c l u d e 
t h a t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   w i t h   l e s s   d e m a n d i n g 
re q u i re m e n t s   h a ve   p ro ve n   t h e i r   p o t e n t i a l 
i n   d e l i ve r i n g   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   b e n e f i t s,   t h e n 
t h e i r   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   a c h i e v i n g   t h e   e n v i -
r o n m e n t a l   o b j e c t i v e s   j u s t i f i e s   t h e i r   c o n -
tin uation and  ex ten sive ap p l icat i o n . 

M o r e o v e r,   a   l o n g e r   p e r i o d   a n d   c o n t i n u a -
t i o n   i n   t h e   s u b - m e a s u r e s ’  a p p l i c a t i o n   i s 
of ten a key fac tor in realising the expec ted 
environ ment a l t arg ets.   

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   i t   i s   n o t 
n e c e s s a r y   t o   r e q u i r e   a   s p e c i f i c   a n a l y s i s 
o f   i n d i v i d u a l   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e i r   l i n k 
t o   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   t o   j u s t i f y   t h e i r   a p p l i c a -
t i o n   i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s.   S u c h   a n   a n a l y s i s 
shou ld  be  fo cu sed  on  the  s et  of   s u b -m eas -
u r e s   f o r e s e e n   i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s ,   w h i c h 
a l l   t o g e t h e r   a r e   e x p e c t e d   t o   c o r r e s p o n d 
t o   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e i r 
ach ievem ent. 

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

72

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

T h e   r u r a l   d e ve l o p m e n t   p ro g r a m m e   o f   t h e 
Hexagon is not supposed to address all the 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s ,   g i v e n   t h e   l i m -
i t e d   f i n a n c i a l   r e s o u r c e s   a l l o c a t e d   t o   i t .   I t 
c o n t a i n s   s o m e   m u l t i - o b j e c t i v e   m e a s u r e s 
a i m i n g   at   t h e   b i o d i ve r s i t y   a n d   wate r   c h a l-
lenges as well as some specific ones in lim -
ited areas. However, this programme is not 
t h e   o n l y   m e a n s   o f   i n t e r v e n t i o n   b e c a u s e 
o t h e r   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   a r e   a l s o 
a d d r e s s e d   b y   n a t i o n a l   p o l i c i e s   9  a n d / o r 
through the complementarit y with the first 
pillar of t he common agr icultural  poli c y.

S ee  also the  Cour t ’s remar k s in  poi nt  3 8 .

B ox	 6
Please s ee th e reply  to point  9 4 .

S ee  also the  Cour t ’s remar k s in  poi nt  3 8 .

9  Such as the climate plan, the energy performance plan, etc. 
described in the chapter 3.2.2.1., pp. 40–46 of the tome 1 of the 

Programme, version 5.

94.
M ember States are no t req uired  to  p re se nt 
t h e i r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   b u d g e t   a c c o r d -
i n g   t o   d i f fe re n t   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   o b j e c t i ve s 
a n d   p r i o r i t i e s .   H o w e v e r,   t h e y   d o   p r o v i d e 
a   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   f o r   t h e i r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
i n   r e l a t i o n   t o   t h e i r   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   n e e d s 
a n d   p r i o r i t i e s .   T h e r e f o r e ,   i f   t h e   m e a s u r e s 
respond to the latter, then also the budget 
for agr i- environment should be considered 
as being in line with those needs and pres -
sures. 

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   A n d a l u c í a ,   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
o b s e r v a t i o n s   a r e   b a s e d   o n   f i g u r e s   f r o m 
 2000–08  8. 

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   B r a n d e n b u r g   a n d   B e r l i n , 
t h e   m a i n   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   a r e 
d e s c r i b e d   i n   t h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
gra m m e   ( R D P )   a n d   co r re s p o n d   to   t h e   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   i m p l e m e n t e d .   T h e   a g r i - e n v i -
r o n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u r e s   w i t h   t h e   h i g h e s t 
e x p e n d i t u r e s   ( e x t e n s i v e   g r a s s l a n d   m a n -
a g e m e n t   a n d   o rg a n i c   f a r m i n g )   t a rg e t   s e v-
eral  enviro nmental  ob jec tives.

8  The alignment of the expenditure with the environmental 
pressures identified is foreseen in the relevant rural development 

regulations for the 2007–13 programming period, in which the 

strategic programming approach principle was put in place, 

but for the 2000–06 programming period, the link between the 

environmental pressures and the measures selected was not 

underlined. In addition, environmental pressures identified do not 

need to be addressed exclusively by AEM (e.g. water efficiency can 

be addressed via measure 121 and 125).

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

7373

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Recommendatio n	1 	—	S econ d	 ind ent
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   l i n k 
b e t w e e n   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r e s s u r e s   a n d 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   m u s t   b e   c l e a r l y   e s t a b -
l i s h e d .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   m a i n t e n a n c e   o f 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p o t e n t i a l s   a n d   o p p o r t u n i -
t i e s   i s   a l s o   c o n s i d e re d   a s   a   v a l i d   j u s t i f i c a -
tion  for agr i- environ ment pay me nts.

T h e   c h a r a c t e r   o f   t h e   l i n k   t o   t h e   e n v i r o n -
mental pressures it responds to can usually 
b e   i n fe r r e d   f r o m   a   s u b - m e a s u r e’s   c o n t e n t 
an d th us need  n ot be spelle d o ut.

O t h e r   a l t e r n a t i v e   p o l i c i e s   c o m p l e m e n t 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   m e a s u re s.   I n   a cco rd a n ce 
w i t h   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y,   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a r e   f r e e   t o   d e c i d e   w h e t h e r   t o   u s e 
a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   a n d / o r   o t h e r   a l te r n at i ve 
p o l i c i e s   t o   a c h i e ve   t h e   e x p e c t e d   e nv i ro n-
menta l re sult s.   

9 7.
The Commission agrees that the success of 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   d e p e n d s   o n   t h e   a c t i v e 
involveme nt  of far mers.   

G o o d   p r a c t i c e s   a r e   a   f o c a l   p o i n t   o f   a l l 
E u ro p e a n   N e t wo r k   fo r   R u r a l   D e ve l o p m e n t 
( E N   R D)   a c t i o n s   a n d   d i s s e m i n ate d   t h ro u g h 
t h e   v a r i o u s   p u b l i c a t i o n s   i s s u e d   a n d   s e m i -
n a r s   o r g a n i s e d .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   c a n   a l s o 
d i s s e m i n ate   b e s t   p ra c t i ce s   by   t ra i n i n g   a n d 
far m advisor y  ser vice measures.

T h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   o f   a i d   a m o u n t s   i s   t h e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d 
i s   c e r t i f i e d   b y   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   b o d y.   I n 
c a s e s   o f   d o u b t s   c o n c e r n i n g   a i d   a m o u n t s 
p r o p o s e d ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w e r e   a s k e d   t o 
provide detailed infor mation on the under-
l y i n g   c a l c u l a t i o n s   a n d   re v i s e   t h e m ,   i f   n e c -
essar y. Calculations of aid amounts may be 
differentiate d ‘as appropr iate’.

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

95.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t   t h a t   s i g n i f i c a n t 
p r o g r e s s   h a s   b e e n   m a d e   s i n c e   t h e   i n t r o -
duc tion of agr i- environment.   

96.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   v e r i f i e d   t h a t   t h e 
measure and objec tives are specific, meas -
u r a b l e,   a c h i e v a b l e,   re a l i s t i c   a n d   t i m e l y   t o 
t h e   e x t e n t   p o s s i b l e   d u r i n g   t h e   p ro c e d u re 
of t he pro grammes’ ap p roval.

Wh i l e   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   s u b - m e a s u re s   c a n 
also  addre ss  enviro nmental   p o te nt i als   an d 
o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,   a n d   w h i l e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
p r e s s u r e s   c a n   b e   a d d r e s s e d   b y   a g r i - e n v i -
ro n m e n t   s u b - m e a s u re s   a n d / o r   o t h e r   r u r a l 
d e v e l o p m e n t   m e a s u r e s ,   t h e r e   i s   a   c l e a r 
l i n k   b e t we e n   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p re s s u re s   a n d 
agr i- environm ent su b -m eas ures.   

Th e   a c t u a l   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   b e n e f i t s   o f   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   c a n   o n l y   b e   d e t e r m i n e d   a f t e r   a 
c e r t a i n   p e r i o d   o f   t i m e   o f   t h e i r   i m p l e m e n -
t a t i o n .   T h e   m i d - t e r m   e v a l u a t i o n   ( M T E ) 
repor ts, submitted at the end of 2010, pro -
v i d e   t h e   f i r s t   o p p o r t u n i t y   f o r   t h e   i m p a c t 
o f   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s   ( R D P ) , 
i n c l u d i n g   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   s c h e m e s ,   t o 
be assesse d. However, t he imp l em e nt ati on 
a n d   e x p e c t e d   r e s u l t s   o f   a x i s   2   m e a s u r e s 
a r e   m o n i t o r e d   a n d   r e p o r t e d   t o   t h e   C o m -
mis sion in the An nu al  Pro gres s R e p or t s.

S ee a lso t he rep l ies to p o ints  47  a nd  9 1 .

Recomme ndat ion	1	—	Firs t	ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   f u r t h e r   u n d e r l i n e   t h e 
n e e d   fo r   M e m b e r   St ate s   to   e n s u re   co n s i s t-
e n c y   o f   t h e   s u b - m e a s u re s’  o b j e c t i ve s   w i t h 
the general agr i- environmental objec tives.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

74

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

M e m b e r   S t a t e s   d e t e r m i n e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
levels (number of beneficiar ies and area to 
b e   c o v e r e d )   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e i r   e nv i r o n -
menta l n eeds  an d obj ec tives.

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   ce r t a i n   t y p e s 
o f   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   o p e r a t i o n s   w o u l d 
m e r i t   m o r e   r e s e a r c h .   T h e   r e l a t i v e   c o s t s 
a n d   b e n e f i t s   wo u l d   h ave   to   b e   co n s i d e re d 
b e fo re   u n d e r t a k i n g   s u c h   a d d i t i o n a l   i nve s-
t i g at i o n s   s p e c i f i c a l l y   re l ate d   to   t h e   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   a g r i - e nv i ro n m e n t 
sub - measures. 

Recommendatio n	3 	—	First 	 ind ent
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   a 
n e e d   fo r   b e t t e r   t a rg e t i n g   i n   a g r i - e nv i ro n -
m e n t   t o   e n s u r e   g r e a t e r   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
b e n e f i t s   a n d   to   i m p rove   t h e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s 
of the measures. Targeting should not only 
b e   l i n k e d   to   s p e c i f i c   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   n e e d s 
b u t   a l s o   t o   t h e   e x i s t i n g   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
pote nt ial an d oppor tun ities. 

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 	 3 	 — 	 S e c o n d 	 i n d e n t 	 —	
First 	su b -ind ent 
W h e n   p r o p o s i n g   t h e i r   a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t 
s u b - m e a s u re s,   M e m b e r   St ate s   j u s t i f y   t h e m 
b y   e s t a b l i s h i n g   a   l i n k   b e t w e e n   t h e   s u b -
m e a s u r e s   p r o p o s e d   a n d   t h e   i d e n t i f i e d 
n e e d s   ( b e   i t   p r e s s u r e s   o r   p o t e n t i a l s ) .  T h e 
l at te r   c a n   re q u i re   t h e   i nt ro d u c t i o n   o f   n e w 
f a r m i n g   m e t h o d s   o r   t h e   m a i n t e n a n c e   o f 
e x i s t i n g   p r a c t i c e s .   B o t h   c a s e s   h a v e   t o   b e 
well j ustified.

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 	 3 	 — 	 S e c o n d 	 i n d e n t 	 —	
S econd 	su b -ind ent 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
recommen dation .

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 	 3 	 — 	 S e c o n d 	 i n d e n t 	 —	
Th ird 	 su b -ind ent
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   d e t e r m i n e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
levels (number of beneficiar ies and area to 
b e   c o v e r e d )   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e i r   e nv i r o n -
menta l n eeds  an d obj ec tives.

Recomme ndat ion	2
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h i s   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n ,   a s   i t   re f l e c t s   t h e   c u r re n t   l e g a l 
framewor k . 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   v e r i f i e s   w h e t h e r   a l l   e l e -
m e n t s   o f   t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n s   a s   r e q u i r e d   b y 
t h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k   a r e   p r o v i d e d   i n   t h e 
p r o g r a m m e s   a n d   p e r f o r m s   a   p l a u s i b i l i t y 
c h e c k .   I n   c a s e s   o f   d o u b t   c o n c e r n i n g   a i d 
a m o u n t s   p r o p o s e d ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e 
a s k e d   t o   p r o v i d e   d e t a i l e d   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n 
t h e   u n d e r l y i n g   c a l c u l a t i o n s   a n d   r e v i s e 
th em, if n ecessar y.

Ca l c u l at i o n s   o f   a i d   a m o u nt s   m ay   b e   d i f fe r-
entiated ‘as appropr iate’ and of ten follow a 
standa rd co st ap p roach . 

98.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   a   f u r t h e r 
improvement regarding better targeting of 
agri- environment is necessar y and is envis -
a g e d   i n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   t h e   C A P   p o s t -
2 0 1 3 .   H owe ve r,   M e m b e r   St ate s   m u s t   s t r i k e 
a balance bet ween the costs of implement-
i n g   t h i s   a p p ro a c h   a n d   t h e   e x p e c t e d   e nv i -
ro n m e nt a l   b e n e f i t s.   M o re ove r,   t a rg e t i n g   i s 
n o t   t h e   o n l y   v a l i d   a p p r o a c h   t o   a g r i - e n v i -
r o n m e n t .   S o m e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o -
g r a m m e s   ( R D P )   h a v e   a c t u a l l y   c o n s i d e r e d 
t h e   d e s i r a b l e   d e g r e e   o f   t a r g e t i n g   o n   t h e 
b a s i s   o f   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   c o s t s   a n d   b e n-
efits  invol ved. 

Th e   a p p l i c at i o n   o f   s e l e c t i o n   c r i te r i a   i s   n o t 
n e c e s s a r y   t o   e n s u r e   t h e   m o s t   e f f i c i e n t 
a n d   e f fe c t i ve   way   o f   s p e n d i n g   u n d e r   a gr i -
e n v i r o n m e n t .   E l i g i b i l i t y   c o n d i t i o n s   a n d 
regional targeting can ser ve the same pur -
pose.

D i f f e r e n t i a t e d   c o - f i n a n c i n g   r a t e s   a t   s u b -
m e a s u r e   l e v e l   a r e   n o t   fo r e s e e n   u n d e r   t h e 
c u r re nt   re g u l ato r y   f ra m e wo r k .  Th e i r   i nt ro -
duc tion would lead to a considerable addi -
t i o n a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   a n d   s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y   i n c r e a s e   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e 
progra mmes.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

7575

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Simple sub -measures allow broader par tic -
ipation of far mers and ter r itor ial coverage, 
while  more  dem anding  s ub -meas ure s  h ave 
a   h i g h e r   p o t e n t i a l   i n   c a s e s   w h e re   s p e c i f i c 
p ro b l e m s   a re   to   b e   a d d re s s e d   a n d   s p e c i f i c 
e nv i ro n m e n t a l   i m p a c t s   a re   e x p e c t e d.   I t   i s 
n o t   a l w ays   e a s y   to   d i v i d e   t h e s e   t wo   t y p e s 
o f   o p e r a t i o n s   i n t o   t w o   s e p a r a t e   g r o u p s 
a s   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   s i m p l e   o p e r a -
tions can be of a significant environmental 
value.

Wi t h   re g a rd   t o   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g,   t h e   Co m -
m i s s i o n   w i l l   t a k e   a c c o u n t   o f   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n .   O r g a n i c   f a r m i n g   i s   a 
m e a s u r e   t h a t   r e q u i r e s   v e r y   d e m a n d i n g 
m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   i s   i m p l e m e n t e d   a c r o s s 
t h e   w h o l e   t e r r i t o r y   o f   t h e   E U   w i t h o u t   a ny 
s p e c i f i c   t a r g e t i n g .   T h u s ,   i t   w o u l d   c o n s t i -
tute a separate measure if the division pro-
posed by th e Cour t were to  be e mpl oyed. 

1 00 .
The Commission  agrees  that  the re  i s  s cope 
f o r   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   a g r i -
e n v i r o n m e n t   p o l i c y .   T h e   c u r r e n t   l e g a l 
f r a m e w o r k   a l r e a d y   p r o v i d e s   a   g o o d   b a s i s 
w h i c h   w i l l   n e e d   t o   b e   r e i n f o r c e d   a t   t h e 
program min g level.

Th e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt   a n d 
t h e   r e s u l t   o f   t h e   p o l i c y   c a n   o n l y   b e   c o m -
p r e h e n s i v e l y   a s s e s s e d   o n c e   t h e   c u r r e n t 
p ro g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d   i s   ove r.   E nv i ro n m e n -
tal im pac ts are  t he  re sult  of a combi n at ion 
o f   m a ny   f a c t o r s   a n d   i t   i s   n o t   a l w ay s   fe a s i -
b l e   to   i d e n t i f y   t h e   p re c i s e   co n t r i b u t i o n   o f 
s p e c i f i c   i n d i v i d u a l   a c t i o n s .   T h e   s t r a t e g i c 
approach where measures are combined in 
a   l o g i c a l   f r a m e w o r k   i n   o r d e r   t o   s u p p o r t   a 
desire d outcome reflec ts  t his  re ali t y.

Recommendation	3	—	S econd	indent	3	—	
Four th	sub -in de nt
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
recomme ndatio n.

Recomme ndat ion	3	—	Third	inde nt
L i n k i n g   t h e   c o - f i n a n c i n g   r a t e   t o   t h e   e nv i -
r o n m e n t a l   p o t e n t i a l   o f   a   s u b - m e a s u r e 
wo u l d   i n t ro d u ce   a n   e l e m e n t   o f   s u b j e c t i ve 
j u d g m e n t   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f 
e a c h   s u b - m e a s u re’s   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   p o te n -
t i a l .   To   p r e v e n t   t h i s ,   c l e a r   c r i t e r i a   w o u l d 
n e e d   t o   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d .   G i v e n   t h e   l a r g e 
n u m b e r   o f   s u b - m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e   w i d e 
d i v e r s i t y   o f   f a r m i n g   p r a c t i c e s   t h e y   r e f e r 
to,   t h i s   wo u l d   c re a t e   a   co n s i d e r a b l e   a d d i -
t i o n a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n   a n d   s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y   i n c r e a s e   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e 
progra mmes.

99.
T h e   s p e c i f i c   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   n e e d s   c a n   b e 
addressed by both t ypes of schemes: basic 
a n d   h i g h e r   l e v e l .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w a n t s 
a g r i - e n v i r o n m e n t   i n   p i l l a r   2   t o   c o n t i n u e 
t o   i n c l u d e   b o t h   b a s i c   a n d   h i g h e r - l e v e l 
s c h e m e s   a s   s u c h   a   m i x   a l l ows   to   a d d re s s   a 
l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   n e e d s   a n d   i s s u e s,   a n d   t o 
c o ve r   a   b ro a d   a re a .   B a s i c   s c h e m e s,   i f   we l l 
d e s i gn e d   a n d   i m p l e m e n te d,   c a n   o f fe r   s i g -
n i f i c a n t   e nv i r o n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   a t   a   r e l a -
tively  low co st.

Recomme ndat ion	4
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at,   i n   a cco rd-
a n c e   w i t h   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y, 
a g r i - e nv i r o n m e n t a l   o p e r a t i o n s   s h o u l d   b e 
defined at  M e mb er State and no t  E U le vel. 

All three t ypes of sub -measures mentioned 
by the Cour t are needed to attain the envi -
ro n m e nt a l   o b j e c t i ve s.   A l l   o f   t h e m   a re   a l s o 
b a s e d   o n   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   t h a t   a i d   a m o u n t s 
are calculated on the basis of income fore -
g o n e   a n d   co s t   i n c u r re d.  Th i s   h e l p s   to   p re -
ve nt   at t r i b u t i n g   va l u e s   to   s p e c i f i c   a c t i o n s 
in an a r bit rar y mann er.

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?

77

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	7/2011

Is	agri-environment	support	well	designed	and	managed?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 75 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-201-9

doi:10.2865/41418

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

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

at the European Union'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.

Priced	publications:

• 

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

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
5
-
E
N

-
C

AGRI-ENVIRONMENT  IS  A  KEY  EU  POLICY  WHICH  AIMS  TO  RESPOND 

TO  SOCIETY’S  INCREASING  DEMAND  FOR  ENVIRONMENTAL  SERVICES. 

THIS  REPORT  ASSESSES  WHETHER  THIS  POLICY  IS  WELL  DESIGNED  AND 

MANAGED.  THE  COURT  FOUND  THAT  THE  CONDITIONS  FOR  ASSESSING 

WHETHER OR NOT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED 

ARE NOT IN PLACE. THE SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO FARMERS 

WERE  GENERALLY  WELL 

IMPLEMENTED.  HOWEVER,  CONSIDERABLE 

PROBLEMS  WERE  IDENTIFIED  CONCERNING  THE  AID  AMOUNTS.  MOST 

EXPENDITURE  WAS  MADE  ON  BASIC  HORIZONTAL  SCHEMES  WITHOUT 

APPLYING  SELECTION  PROCEDURES  AND  WITHOUT  CLEAR  DECISIONS 

ABOUT  THE  DESIRABLE  DEGREE  OF  TARGETING.  ALTHOUGH  THE  AUDIT 

IDENTIFIED  GOOD  PRACTICES,  THE  WEAKNESSES  FOUND  BY  THE  COURT 

HAVE  HAMPERED  OPTIMAL  ACHIEVEMENT  OF  THE  MAIN  OBJECTIVES  OF 

AGRI-ENVIRONMENT,  NAMELY  CONTRIBUTING  TO  EU-LEVEL  PRIORITY 

AREAS  (BIODIVERSITY,  WATER,  CLIMATE  CHANGE)  AND  IMPROVING  THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE COUNTRYSIDE.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS