REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL First report on the impact of the 2006 reform of the scheme of specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Aegean Islands, EU programme, agrarian reform, agricultural product, aid system, production aid, supply

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.12.2011 
COM(2011) 919 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

First report on the impact of the 2006 reform of the scheme of specific measures for 
agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

First report on the impact of the 2006 reform of the scheme of specific measures for 
agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  61  ‘smaller  Aegean  Islands’1  constitute  an  extremely  fragmented  insular 
territory that is subject to severe geographic and natural constraints. The permanently 
exceptional  situation  of  these  islands,  characterised  by  distance,  insularity,  limited 
surface area, mountainous terrain and a difficult climate, is the source of major socio-
economic  problems,  namely  the  difficulties  of  supplying  the  food  and  agricultural 
products  needed  for  everyday  consumption  and  agricultural  production  and  the 
difficulty of maintaining the competitiveness of local agricultural products. 

Given  the  exceptional  characteristics  and  the  constraints  peculiar  to  these  islands 
with regard to the rest of the EU, the smaller Aegean islands therefore benefit from 
specific measures for agriculture. 

These specific measures are taken as part of the common agricultural policy (CAP) 
and are specifically intended to create the appropriate conditions for its application. 

In the context of these specific measures taken alongside application of the first pillar 
of the CAP in Greece, the smaller Aegean islands benefit from a specific aid scheme 
to promote local production and to help with the supply of essential products, namely 
the PIME scheme (Petites Iles de la Mer Egée - small Aegean islands). 

2. 

THE SCHEME’S BACKGROUND AND MAIN ASPECTS 

The  European  Council  meeting  held  in  Rhodes  on  2  and  3  December  1988 
acknowledged  the  specific  socio-economic  problems  experienced  by  the  Aegean 
islands and, therefore, the need to introduce measures to address these problems. 

Specific measures in favour of the PIME were thus introduced in 1993 with Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the 
smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products2, so as ‘to remedy, in 
respect  of  certain  agricultural  products  and  means  of  agricultural  production,  the 
difficulties caused  by  the remote and insular nature of the smaller Aegean islands’ 
(Article 1 of the Regulation). 

1 

2 

The list of islands can be found in Table 7 of the Scheme of measures in favour of the smaller Aegean 
islands  (PIME)  submitted  by  Greece  and  approved  by  the  Commission  in  application  of  Regulation 
(EC) No 1405/2006. 
OJ L 184, 27.7.1993, p.1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Regulation  was  initially  limited  in  its  application  to  the  ‘smaller  islands’, 
referring  to  islands  with  a  permanent  population  of  less  than  100 000  inhabitants. 
The  scope  of  application  of  the  specific  measures  has,  however,  been  extended  by 
subsequent  legislative  amendments,  specifically  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1405/2006  of  18  September  20063,  which  extended  the  specific  measures  for 
agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands to ‘smaller islands’ without any 
demographic criterion, namely to ‘all the Aegean Islands, with the exception of Crete 
and Evia’ (Article 1(2) of this Regulation). 

The main objectives of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 were: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

to respond to the PIME’s socio-economic problems; 

to offset the natural handicap affecting supplies (remoteness, insularity, small 
scale); 

to reduce production costs and consumer prices; 

to support traditional local production (livestock breeding, fruit and vegetable 
production, olive production, viniculture and beekeeping). 

The PIME scheme is designed to achieve these objectives by means of: 

(a) 

specific supply arrangements (SSA) to decrease supply costs for food products, 
for  products  for  local  processing  or  to  be  used  as  agricultural  inputs  by 
subsidising  the  supply  of  Community  products,  within  the  limits  of  the 
requirements of the local market; 

(b)  measures  to  support  local  products  (SLP)  aiming  to  support  traditional 
activities, improve quality and develop local production in accordance with the 
requirements  of  the  markets  on  the  smaller  Aegean  islands  and  to  revitalise 
certain agricultural activities which are a traditional and natural vocation on the 
islands  in  question.  These  measures  involve  subsidising  the  production, 
processing and/or marketing of these products; 

(c) 

structural  derogations  (derogations  from  the  provisions  which  restrict  or 
prohibit the granting of certain forms of structural aid). 

The legal basis for these specific measures, which have subsequently been amended 
several times, is the primary legislation on the common agricultural policy, namely, 
since 1 December 2009 and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Articles 42 and 
43 TFEU. 

The PIME scheme was reformed in 2006. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 
19 July 1993 was repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 
of 18 December 2006. 

The main reasons for this reform are as follows: 

3 

OJ L 265, 26.9.2006, p.1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

The  2003  CAP  reform  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1782/2003  of  29 
September  2003  on  direct  support  schemes  for  farmers4)  which  marked  a 
reorientation of the CAP and opened the way to reform the common market 
organisations (CMOs), to which the PIME refers.  

The acknowledgement of the rigidity in the management of the programmes, 
which did not allow a rapid adaptation of the supply balances and of the SLP 
measures  to  the  needs  of  the  territory  and  hampered  any  participative 
approach. 

The 2006 reform did not modify the main objectives and instruments of the scheme. 
Its main novelty is the adoption of a programming approach and the transfer to the 
Member State of the responsibility to design programmes adapted to local needs5 and 
to  amend6,  manage  and  monitor  them.  The  objective  of  this  innovation  was  to 
introduce a higher level of flexibility in the management of the SSA and SLP and to 
simplify the procedures for their amendment. 

It  is  important  to  note  that,  although  the  PIME  and  POSEI  schemes  ("Posei"  - 
Programme of Options Specific to their remote and Insular nature designed for the 
outermost  regions)  adopt  a  similar  approach  (‘specific  measures’,  objectives, 
structure)  and  are  managed  under  the  same  budgetary  headings,  from  a  regulatory 
point of view, the PIME scheme is administered separately from the POSEI scheme. 

Unlike the POSEI scheme, which represents the equivalent of the CAP first pillar for 
the  outermost  regions  in  a  specific  context  of  derogation,  the  PIME  scheme 
constitutes a top-up to the single payment scheme which covers the Aegean islands 
and the rest of Greece under the first pillar of the CAP, so as to address the specific 
problems affecting these islands (see Annex 2 for an overview of the payments under 
the SPS and the PIME schemes). 

A further important difference lies in the fact that while the POSEI scheme benefits 
under the specific supply arrangements (SSA) from an exemption from import duties 
for  products  from  third  countries7,  the  PIME  scheme  does  not  benefit  from  this 
derogation mechanism from the Union's customs arrangements. 

During  the  2003  CAP  reform,  Greece  decided  not  to  request  an  exemption  from 
applying  the  SPS  to  the  PIME,  so  since  2006  the  SPS  has  been  applied  across  the 
board.  

However, under the PIME scheme, the smaller islands can keep coupled aid designed 
to  maintain  specific  types  of  agriculture  that  are  important  for  protecting  the 
environment and improving quality and marketing.  

4 
5 

6 

7 

OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p.1. 
The PIME programme established by Greece was approved by Commission Decision C(2006)6889 of 
22.12.2006 and implemented from 2007.  
The PIME programme has been amended twice by Commission Decisions C(2009)2880 of 21.4.2009 
and C(2010)9189 of 20.12.2010. 
Derogation from Article 28 TFEU stating that: ‘The Union shall comprise a customs union which shall 
cover  all  trade  in  goods  and  which  shall  involve  the  prohibition  between  Member  States  of  customs 
duties  on  imports  and  exports  and  of  all  charges  having  equivalent  effect,  and  the  adoption  of  a 
common customs tariff in their relations with third countries’. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Without the option of coupling, there would be a serious risk of local crops no longer 
being  cultivated  and  negative  consequences  at  economic,  social  and  environmental 
levels (preservation of the landscape).  

By way of example, for the olive oil sector, which is of primordial importance for the 
islands, this option of partial coupling means that the abandoning of olive cultivation 
can be avoided. 

3. 

LEGAL BASIS OF THE REPORT 

Article  17(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1405/2006  provides  that  ‘Not  later  than  31 
December  2011,  and  thereafter  every  five  years,  the  Commission  shall  submit  a 
general report to the European Parliament and the Council showing the impact of the 
action  taken  under  this  Regulation,  accompanied  if  applicable  by  appropriate 
proposals’. 

In particular, the present report takes into account the data on the relevant markets up 
to 2010, the financial execution of the programmes until the financial year 2011 and 
the  study carried out by the consultants Oréade–Brèche for  the Commission on  the 
evaluation  of  the  measures  implemented  under  PIME  since  2001  (hereinafter  'the 
evaluation 
available  under: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/posei/index_fr.htm  

in  February  2010 

study'),  published 

and 

4. 

IMPACT OF THE 2006 REFORM 

4.1. 

Programming and partnership approach 

The  increased  responsibilities  and  competencies  for  the  national  and  regional 
authorities  for  defining  their  programme  and  the  participation  of  stakeholders  in 
designing the measures have been welcomed both by Greece and the operators. 

In  particular,  the  increased  flexibility  towards  the  gradual  adaptation  of  the 
programme to the actual local needs by means of annual amendments is judged very 
positively.  In  a  context  of  fragility  due  to  the  market  and  climatic  risks  specific  to 
these regions, it means that the support measures can be adapted rapidly to the actual 
requirements of the islands. Since its initial approval in 2006, the PIME programme 
has been amended twice, in 2008 and in 2010. 

The  evaluation  study  notes  a  decrease  in  the  administrative  burden  since  2007. 
However,  the  national  and  local  authorities  still  consider  the  administration  of  this 
scheme to be too cumbersome and complex, given the number of islands and the lack 
of administrative staff on some islands (rendering checks difficult in particular). 

Overall, the cost of administering the PIME scheme remains high in comparison with 
the financial scale of the aid provided under the scheme (especially for the SSA and 
regarding the issue of small consignments). 

Administering 
national/regional authorities and for the Commission's services. 

the  PIME  scheme 

therefore  proves  onerous 

for  both 

the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Specific supply arrangements (SSA) 

4.2.1.  General impact of the SSA 

The evaluation study shows that the SSA are considered to be essential for supply in 
all the islands, both by the national and local authorities and by the operators, which 
is why it is important to maintain these arrangements. 

Overall, the SSA have had a positive impact with regard to improving the frequency 
and  the  regularity  of  supply  to  the  islands  throughout  the  year  (regular  supply  of 
cattle  feed)  even  despite  occasional  shortages  due  to  limited  transport  and  stock 
capacities. 

The evaluation study nevertheless reveals that the arrangements are less effective for 
the  most  remote  islands  (the  outer  islands  classified  in  group  B),  compared  to  the 
islands that are close to mainland Greece (islands classified in group A). 

In general, since the 2006 reform, the PIME have been making less use of the SSA. 
This is the result of Greece's decision to restrict the SSA budget so as to divert the 
funds to SLP measures. 

The  decrease  in  the  use  of  the  SSA  has  been  particularly  marked  for  products  for 
human  consumption  (cereals  and  flour).  Since  the  2006  reform  which  made  it 
compulsory  for  the  aid  applicant  to  be  located  in  the  PIME,  many  small  operators 
(bakers)  do  not  receive  the  aid  because,  on  the  one  hand,  the  SSA  administrative 
costs are too high compared with the financial aid provided and, on the other hand, 
beneficiaries are not given enough information. 

In parallel to this, the evaluation study reveals a tendency for a greater share of the 
SSA  to  be  given  to  animal  feed  products.  It  is  therefore  the  Member  State's 
responsibility to target the SSA priorities to take into account the importance of stock 
breeding on the islands. 

4.2.2.  Guarantee of supply of essential products 

The  evaluation  study  shows  that  the  extent  which  the  SSA  cover  the  needs  of  the 
PIME varies, both in terms of the products selected and the islands that are eligible. 

The study also points out that the SSA better cover needs with regard to animal feed 
products rather than products essential for human consumption.  

Furthermore,  the  SSA  better  cover  the  needs  of  the  islands  closest  to  the  mainland 
ports (the group A islands) as compared to the most remote (some group B islands). 

4.2.3.  Compensation of additional costs  

The evaluation study notes that, given that the islands are very fragmented, some are 
very  far  from  the  supply  ports.  In  consequence,  the  costs  engendered  vary  greatly 
from one island to another, depending on its distance from the mainland. 

The SSA allows for the offsetting of the additional costs of supplying all the products 
selected only for the group A islands. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
For  the  remote  group  B  islands,  the  SSA  cover  only  50%  of  the  costs,  given  that 
transport costs are much higher.  

4.2.4.  Passing on the benefit to the end-user 

The evaluation study demonstrates that this advantage has not been passed on to the 
final beneficiaries to the same extent in the two island groups.  

The SSA cover transport costs to the islands unevenly, which has consequences for 
the price to the final user. The advantage to the final user is greater over the group A 
islands  and  the  closer  of  the  group  B  islands,  compared  to  the  most  remote  of  the 
group B islands. 

With regard to the impact on prices, the SSA have brought about a significant drop in 
feed  prices  since  2007,  and  prices  are  now  close  to  those  on  mainland  Greece. 
However the SSA have not had any generalised impact on food prices.  

4.2.5.  Re-dispatching of processed products and trade distortions 

As  stated  under  recital  No  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1405/2006,  the 
quantities covered by the SSA are limited to the supply requirements of the PIME, in 
order not to impair the proper functioning of the internal market or distort trade in the 
products concerned.  

Dispatching  or  exporting  those  products  from  the  PIME  is  therefore  prohibited. 
However, dispatch or exportation of the products is authorised where the advantage 
resulting from the SSA is reimbursed or, in the case of processed products, to permit 
regional  trade  or  traditional  trade  flows  as  provided  for  by  Article  5  of  the  above 
Regulation. 

The evaluation study shows that no products benefiting from the SSA in the PIME 
are re-dispatched or exported and that in consequence, regional trade is not adversely 
affected.  

However,  there  is  insufficient  monitoring  in  this  area.  The  Member  State  is 
responsible  for  improving  the  monitoring  of  products  entering  and  exiting  the 
PIME's geographical area. 

4.2.6.  Maintenance and development of agricultural activities  

The SSA has an essential role in preserving of local production structures by: 

– 

– 

supporting the profitability of local livestock breeding; 

contributing 
consumption). 

to  maintaining  bakery  and  milling  activities  (for  human 

The  SSA  have  brought  about  a  decrease  in  the  price  of  feed  and  in  consequence  a 
decrease in stockbreeders’ production costs. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
4.3. 

Supporting Local Production (SLP) 

4.3.1.  Maintaining and developing local agricultural production  

As  regards  SLP,  the  evaluation  study  focussed  on  three  sectors:  olive,  honey  and 
Chios  mastic.  These  are  sectors  that  are  representative  of  the  PIME,  in  that  they 
account for two thirds of the envelope for SLP measures. Furthermore, the study is 
limited  in  that  statistical  data  are  lacking  for  several  sectors.  The  Member  State  is 
responsible  for  ensuring  reliable  data  collection  across  all  the  sectors  involved  in 
SLP. 

As  for  how  the  SLP  measures  affect  the  competitiveness  of  the  three  sectors,  the 
evaluation study demonstrates that the aid does indeed increase farm income. Since 
the 2006 reform, SLP measures have maintained farmers’ income by covering part of 
their production costs. 

Agriculture  on  the  PIME  is  principally  a  family  concern  and  is  geared  to  the  local 
market. This type of farming is centred on traditional activities and quality produce. 

The  SLP  measures  under  the  PIME  scheme  are  intended  to  support  traditional 
production and improve quality, with the aim of maintaining activities considered to 
play a fundamental role at economic, social and environmental levels. 

In a context where economic opportunities are few and far between and farms very 
small-scale,  this  aid  helps  maintain  or  support  activities  which  might  otherwise  no 
longer be attractive for farmers. 

Greece considers it vital to maintain aid coupled to production, given the importance 
of  the  traditional  production  activities  and  of  the  quality  products  with  high  value-
added in economic, social and environmental terms (preservation of topography and 
irrigation) but also culturally (quality products that encapsulate the islands’ identity).  

Without the possibility of partial coupling, there would be a serious risk that farmers 
would stop producing some crops, particularly as regards the olive oil sector which is 
the predominant crop on the islands. 

5. 

FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION 

Data  on  the  financial  execution  of  the  PIME  scheme  from  2007  to  2010  (financial 
years 2008-11) are set out in Annex I. 

Apart from the additional national financing of EUR 547 000 allocated in application 
of  Article  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1405/2006,  the  aid  provided  by  this  scheme 
consists of 100% EU funding (Article 12 of this Regulation). 

Following the 2006 reform, Greece decided to restrict the SSA budget (by reducing 
the  volumes  of  products  eligible  under  the  scheme)  in  order  to  divert  the  funds  to 
SLP measures. Despite this choice, the annual SSA budget appears to have been well 
used in the PIME over the period in question (average implementation rate: 94%). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Also, some SLP measures have exhausted the allocated financial resources in the last 
few years. However, with an average implementation rate of 88%, there is still room 
for manoeuvre financially.  

The  situation  may  be  improved  by  redistributing  the  available  budget  among  the 
measures where margins exist.  

Furthermore,  Article  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1405/2006  allows  Greece  to  grant 
additional national financing for SLP measures. 

With  regard  to  the  SSA,  the  upper  limit  established  in  Article  12(3)  of  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1405/2006  on  the  basis  of  the  historical  implementation  in  2001-03,  does 
represent a constraint, however.  

On  the  basis  of  budgetary  neutrality,  it  has  therefore  been  proposed  that  this  upper 
limit  should  be  increased  so  as  to  enable  a  more  flexible  redistribution  of  funds 
between the SLP measures and the SSA (see point 7.1). 

6. 

AUDIT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PIME SCHEME AFTER 2006 

The  Commission  audit  services  conducted  surveys  on  the  clearance  of  the  PIME 
accounts in 2007 and 2010. 

Overall,  these  audits  demonstrate  an  improvement  with  regard  to  previous  years, 
although some shortcomings are noted concerning aid for olive groves (2007 audit), 
as well as some administrative shortcomings (2010 audit).  

The  consequences  of  these  surveys  are  dealt  with  in  the  context  of  the  clearance 
procedure  currently  underway.  It  must  however  be  pointed  out  that  the  plethora  of 
aid  schemes  aimed  at  a  high  number  of  small-scale  beneficiaries  engenders  a  high 
administrative and financial cost with regard to the advantages offered. 

7. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

7.1. 

Proposed amendments to EU legislation 

Considering the development of the scheme in the last few years and the recent entry 
into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  a  proposal  recasting  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1405/2006 was already adopted by the Commission in December 2010 to update and 
simplify some provisions and to align it to the new requirements of the TFEU. 

Specifically,  amending  its  Article  12(3)  has  been  proposed,  so  as  to  increase  the 
annual SSA upper limit – in the context of the existing financial allocation – so that 
the funds earmarked for the SSA can be used more broadly and so as to allow a more 
flexible  redistribution  of  funds  between  the  SLP  measures  and  the  SSA  without 
increasing  the  overall  budget.  This  would  enable  the  funds  to  be  reallocated  to 
ensure,  for  instance,  the  availability  of  funds  to  cover  the  additional  expenditure 
required for the requirements of the most remote islands (see point 4.2.3). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The Commission has proposed amending Article 17(2) of the Regulation to facilitate 
the  Member  State's  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme.  The 
intention is to postpone the deadline for submitting the annual implementation report 
to the Commission from 30 June to 31 July so as to enable the Greek authorities to 
the 
include 
implementation  of  the  measures  provided  by  the  aid  scheme  during  the  previous 
year. 

the  final  expenditure  on  SLP  measures.  This  report  covers 

The reform of the CAP recently adopted by the Commission has no particular impact 
on how the PIME scheme functions. 

7.2. 

Recommendations to the Member State 

Greece plays a key role in the implementation of this scheme. It should consider how 
to  address  the  patchy  administrative  cover  throughout  this  very  fragmented 
collection of islands so as to meet the needs of all the beneficiaries eligible to receive 
aid under this scheme and to enable a more extensive control of its implementation 
(see point 4.1). 

It is also essential for the Member State to set up a system capable of reliable data 
collection for all the sectors concerned by the SLP measures so as to allow regular 
monitoring  both  by  the  national  administration  and  by  the  Commission  (see  point 
4.3.1). 

So  as  to  prevent  any  inequality  in  treatment  between  the  islands  covered  by  the 
scheme,  the  Member  State  is  responsible  for  refining  the  classification  of  the 
islands  to  take  into  account  all  the  degrees  of  remoteness  (double  or  even  triple 
insularity). The existing classification series (group A for the closest islands, group B 
for the most remote islands) should be extended by adding one or possibly two island 
groups for the very remote islands (the most remote of the group B islands).  

This  new  classification  would  enable  the  various  transport  costs  that  impact  both 
upon the cost of providing supplies and upon the development of local production to 
be better taken into account. A better coverage of needs as well as a more tangible 
impact on consumer prices would be ancillary benefits (see points 4.2.2 - 4.2.4). 

Given  the  trend  observed  since  2006  of  allocating  SSA  according  to  product  area 
(Greece’s  choice  of  giving  priority  to  supplying  feed  products),  it  is  the  Member 
State's  responsibility  to  refine  the  scheme’s  priorities  by  taking  into  account  the 
importance of stockbreeding on the islands, as well as by improving the monitoring 
of the products entering and exiting the PIME geographic area (see point 4.2.1). 

With  regard  to  the  comment  that  the  scheme  does  not  have  sufficient  impact  on 
consumer food prices (see point 4.2.4), the Member State is invited to reflect upon 
how to better allocate the funds available so as to guarantee their effectiveness. 

The Member State is also invited to publish regular reports on the basis of the key 
indicators that the Commission services have established in order to allow an overall 
evaluation of the progress of the PIME scheme over the years. 

Finally, it is to be underlined that both the initial definition of the PIME programme 
and  the  annual  amendments  require  all  stakeholders  to  adopt  a  participative 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
approach.  The  envisaged  amendment  of  Article  34  of  Commission  Regulation 
(EC) No 1914/2006 postponing the deadline for submitting amendments will allow 
more time for consulting the operators concerned. 

8. 

CONCLUSION 

Since  the  2006  reform  and  the  shift  towards  a  decentralised  approach  in 
administering the scheme, the Commission considers that the PIME scheme has been 
implemented  efficiently  and  satisfactorily  responds  to  the  specific  needs  of  the 
PIME.  

The  programme  thus  guarantees  the  survival  of  traditional  farming  sectors  by 
supporting farmers' income as well as by ensuring the supply of essential products by 
limiting the additional costs incurred. 

Based  on  the  current  analysis  and  situation,  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
financial envelope allocated to PIME has enabled the broad objectives of the scheme 
to be met. 

Both the Commission and the Member State must continue their efforts to improve 
the implementation of the scheme as much as possible and in particular to succeed in 
compensating  for  the  additional  costs  of  supplying  and  maintaining  traditional 
farming activities in the islands. 

The  PIME  scheme  should  also  aim  to  ensure  vital  objectives  such  as  ensuring  the 
quality  of  production,  maintaining  the  identity  of  islands  and  preserving  the 
environment. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

PIME FINANCIAL EXECUTION 2007-2010 (in €) 8 

2007 (2008 financial year)

2008 (2009 financial year)

2009 (2010 financial year)

Title of Measure 

Financial 
allocation 

Actual 
expenditure

Implementa
tion rate 

TOTAL SSA 

5 470 000 

5 301 942  

96.9% 

Actual 
expenditure

Financial 
Financial 
allocation 
allocation 
SPECIFIC SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS (SSA) 
5 470 000 
5 470 000 

Implementa
tion rate 

5 056 729 

92.4% 

Actual 
expenditure

Implementa
tion rate 

2010 (2011 financial year) 
Actual 
expenditure

Financial 
allocation 

Implementa
tion rate 

5 199 726 

95.1% 

5 470 000 

5.037.774 

92.13% 

Prunes (Skopelos) 
Beans/broad beans 
Apiculture 
QWPSR wines 
Traditional olive groves 
Potatoes 
Cherry tomatoes (Santorini) 
Artichokes (Tinos) 
Citrus fruits  
Tree mastic (Chios) 
Traditional cheeses 

TOTAL SLP 
TOTAL PIME 

63 278 
74 638 
1 194 180 
2 500 000 
13 084 83

663 839 
11 773 
5 886 
508 575 
900 000 
- 
19 007 00
0
24 477 00
0*

11 820 
69 003 
1 194 180 
2 181 986 
11 372 595 
560 969 
8 950 
5 884 
327 973 
885 304 
- 

16 618 664 

MEASURES SUPPORTING LOCAL PRODUCTION (SLP) 

18.7% 
92.5% 
100.0% 
87.3% 
86.9% 
84.5% 
76.0% 
100.0% 
64.5% 
98.4% 

63 278 
74 638 
1 194 180 
2 500 000 
13 084 831 
663 839 
11.773 
5 886 
508 575 
900 000 
- 

19 995 
73 048 
1 187 234 
1 322 109 
11 200 034 
471 995 
7 940 
4 153 
275 556 
849 821 
- 

31.6% 
97.9% 
99.4% 
52.9% 
85.6% 
71.1% 
67.4% 
70.6% 
54.2% 
94.4% 

13 278 
74 638 
1 194 180 
2 400 000 
11 384 831 
613 839 
11 773 
5 886 
408 575 
1 150 000 
1 750 000 

13 200 
 71 185 
1 177 271 
2 043 086 
10 934 053 
451 533 
11 761 
5 225 
320 549 
1 073 111 
1 734 350 

87.4% 

19 007 000 

15 411 855 

81.1% 

19 007 000 

17 835 324 

99.4% 
95.4% 
98.6% 
85.1% 
96.0% 
73.6% 
99.9% 
88.8% 
78.5% 
93.3% 
99.1% 

93.1% 

13 278 
74 638 
1 194 180 
2 400 000 
11 384 831 
613 839 
11 773 
5 886 
408 575 
1 150 000 
1 750 000 

13 277 
72 392 
1 114 126 
1 194 932 
10 552 028 
499 776 
11 772 
5 701 
288 419 
1 045 070 
1 723 989 

19 007 000 

17 241 482 

100.0% 
97.0% 
93.3% 
79.8% 
92.7% 
81.4% 
100.0% 
96.9% 
70.6% 
90.9% 
98.5% 

90.7% 

21 920 606 

89.6% 

24 477 000* 

20 468 614 

86.6% 

24 477 000* 

23 035 050 

94.1% 

24 477 000* 

22 279 256 

91.0% 

* 

The amounts allocated include EUR 547 000 additional national financing under Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1405/2006 

8 

EN 

The financial amounts executed indicated in this document are derived from the annual implementation reports submitted by the Member States to the Commission in application of Article 
17(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1405/2006  as  regards  the  SSA  and  from  the  communications  on  the  requests  for  eligible  aid  and  the  relevant  amounts  (Article  32(2)(b)  of 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 1914/2006)  as  regards  the  SLP  measures.  They  correspond  to  the  amounts  spent  per  measure  for  the  calendar  year  in  question  (the  year  of 
implementation) and may not correspond exactly to the amounts of expenditure registered by the European Commission per financial year. 

12 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 

Smaller Aegean Islands: Table indicating the expenditure under direct aid provided in 
the context of the CAP first pillar and the PIME scheme (in €)  

Single  Payment  Scheme  (SPS)  and 
other direct aid* 

2007  
(2008 financial 
year) 

2008  
(2009 financial 
year) 

2009  
(2010 financial 
year) 

57 995 090

61 952 513 

60 502 718

PIME programme (SLP measures) ** 

16 618 664

15 441 855 

17 835 324

Total 

PIME/Total  

74 613 754

77 394 368 

78 338 042

22.3 %

20.0 % 

22.8 %

* 

Amount  of  expenditure  under  aid  provided  in  the  context  of  the  single  payment  scheme  (decoupled 
aid)+ other expenditure under various direct aid (payments for specific crops and quality production, 
transitional payments, aid for barley, aid for silk worms, etc.) 

** 

Amount of expenditure under direct aid provided in the context of the PIME scheme (SLP measures) 

EN 

13 

   EN