COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived
Date: 2012-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative check, aid to disadvantaged groups, co-financing, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), operation of the Institutions

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 24.10.2012  
SWD(2012) 350 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  

on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived  

{COM(2012) 617 final} 
{SWD(2012) 351 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Table of Content 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATIONS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES ..................4 

1.1. 
1.2. 
1.3. 

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................4 
ORGANIZATION AND TIMING OF PREPARATORY WORK........................................................................................5 
CONSULTATIONS........................................................................................................................................................6 
Opinion of the civil society and local authorities...............................................................................................6 
Positions of Member States .........................................................................................................................................7 
Position of the European Parliament......................................................................................................................8 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................................................8 

2.1. 

2.2. 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MDP ......................................................................8 
Key points ............................................................................................................................................................................9 
Conclusions from the European Court of Auditors' assessment of the MDP ......................................11 
Beneficiaries' views and perceptions ...................................................................................................................11 
Targeting of MDP support ........................................................................................................................................13 
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM...........................................................................................................................14 
Poverty – a challenge for Europe...........................................................................................................................14 
Indicators of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion .........................................................................15 
Overall pattern and trends .............................................................................................................................................. 15 
People at risk of poverty .................................................................................................................................................. 17 
Severe material deprivation ........................................................................................................................................... 18 
Persons living in household with very low work intensity ............................................................................... 19 
Material aspects of poverty......................................................................................................................................19 
Food poverty ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 
Homelessness ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21 
Material deprivation of children................................................................................................................................... 21 
INITIATIVES IN THE MEMBER STATES................................................................................................................22 
WHO IS AFFECTED IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT?..........................................................................23 
HOW WOULD THE PROBLEM EVOLVE, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL?.................................................................24 
EU RIGHT TO ACT ...................................................................................................................................................24 
EU ADDED-VALUE ..................................................................................................................................................25 

2.3. 
2.4. 
2.5. 
2.6. 
2.7. 

3.  OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 28 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 
3.4. 

GENERAL OBJECTIVE..............................................................................................................................................28 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE ...............................................................................................................................................28 
OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE .....................................................................................................................................28 
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER EU POLICIES AND STRATEGIES ...........................................................................29 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................... 30 

4.1. 
4.2. 
4.3. 

THE SCOPE OF THE NEW INSTRUMENT ...............................................................................................................31 
INTERVENTION STOCKS .........................................................................................................................................32 
OPTIONS...................................................................................................................................................................33 
Option 0 - No funding..................................................................................................................................................33 
Option 1 – Food Aid......................................................................................................................................................34 
Option 2 – Food Assistance.......................................................................................................................................34 
Option 3 – Broad scope...............................................................................................................................................34 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 35 

5.1. 

SCOPE OPTIONS.......................................................................................................................................................36 
Option 0: No funding ...................................................................................................................................................36 
Economic Impacts............................................................................................................................................................... 36 
Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36 
Option 1 (Baseline): Food aid only........................................................................................................................37 
Economic Impacts............................................................................................................................................................... 37 
Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37 
Option 2: Food assistance..........................................................................................................................................38 

 
 
 
 
Economic impacts ............................................................................................................................................................... 38 
Social impacts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38 
Option 3: Broad scope instrument ........................................................................................................................39 
Economic impacts ............................................................................................................................................................... 39 
Social impacts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.....................................................................................................................................40 

5.2. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS............................................................................................................. 41 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 45 

Annexes 
Annex 1. The European Social Fund ............................................................................................ i 
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People (MDP)ii 
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements ............................................................. x 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings...................................................................xi 
Annex 5. Profile of food aid recipients......................................................................................xi 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to severely materially deprived persons in the 
EU Member States..............................................................................................................................xi 
Annex 7. Sensitivity to increasing food prices.......................................................................xi 
Annex 8.  Progress at EU level on homelessness..................................................................xi 
Annex 9. Child poverty.....................................................................................................................xi 
Annex 10. Simulations......................................................................................................................xi 
Annex 11. EU actions on food losses/food waste/food surpluses................................xi 

Figures 
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of the population at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion (in % of the total population, 2010).................................................................... 16 
Figure 2. Developments in the risk of poverty or exclusion (AROPE) and its 
components in the EU (2005 – 2010) ..................................................................................... 17 
Figure 3. Percentage of the population in Latvia unable to afford a meal with 
meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day............................... 20 
Figure 4. Summary of the problem definition ..................................................................... 27 
Figure 5.  Allocations of MDP budget in 2012 (in %) .........................................................iv 
Figure 6.  Number of MDP beneficiaries ................................................................................... v 
Figure 7. Ratio of the MDP beneficiaries to the population at risk of poverty for 
the year 2010 (Source Eurostat and MS implementation reports)..............................vi 
Figure 8.  Volume of food products distributed.................................................................. vii 
Figure 9. Total budget allocation to the MDP 1988-2012 (in millions Euros) ..... viii 
Figure 10. Breakdown of allocation under the MDP, 1995-2011 (in euro)..............ix 
Figure 11. Evolution of food prices compared to the consumer prices index (2005 
=100) .......................................................................................................................................................xi 
Figure 12. Average share of income spent on food by households of the lowest 
income quintile - 2005.....................................................................................................................xi 
Figure 13. At risk of poverty or social exclusion rate in the EU for children and 
total population, 2010......................................................................................................................xi 

 
 
 
 
1. Procedural issues and consultations of the interested 
parties 

1.1. 

Introduction 

In June 2010, EU Heads of State and Government agreed on a poverty and social 
exclusion target as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. They committed themselves 
to reducing poverty and social exclusion in the EU by at least 20 million people by 
2020.  Yet  actual  figures  indicate  an  upward  trend.  Poverty  and  social  exclusion 
have  risen  in  many  Member  States  since  the  crisis  began  in  2008,  raising 
concerns  over  the  social  consequences  for  individuals  and  the  society  at  large. 
The  willingness  and  ability  of  Member  States  to  support  those  who  are  at  the 
margins  of  our  society  have  in  many  cases  decreased.  Social  cohesion  is 
threatened  more  than  before  in  particular  where  high  poverty  rates  prevailed 
already  at  the  start  of  the  crisis  or  where  there  is  a  need  to  comply  with  tough 
austerity  measures.  In  many  Member  States  the  European  level  is  argued  to  be 
(co-) responsible for these developments. 

Structural  measures  aiming  at  reducing  poverty  and  social  exclusion  across  the 
EU  are  important  to  maintain  and  foster  social  and  political  cohesion  within 
Member States and within the EU as a whole. Poverty has also repercussions on 
economic performance: deterioration of human and social capital translates into 
a loss of economic potential and outputs for the EU as a whole and deprives parts 
of  population  from  opportunities  to  develop  their  capabilities  and  contribute 
beneficially to the society. Failure to reduce poverty and social exclusion is also 
morally  unacceptable  in  a  Union  aiming  at  full  employment  and  social  progress 
(Art 3 TEU). 

The European Parliament has requested the Commission to maintain a food aid 
programme and to develop a European strategy on homelessness.  

In its proposal for the next multiannual financial framework the Commission has 
taken  up  on  this  request  and  reserved  a  budget  of  2.5  billion  Euro  for  an 
instrument  under  Cohesion  Policy  to  promote  social 
inclusion  and  the 
harmonious  development  of  the  Union,  reorienting  the  existing  programme  of 
food  support  for  the  most  deprived  persons.  The  main  Union's  instrument  to 
support employability, fight poverty and promote inclusion is and will remain the 
European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  (see  also  Annex  1).  Legal  analysis  showed  that  a 
separate instrument is necessary as the ESF legal basis (Art 162 TFEU) requires a 
sufficiently  close  link  of  the  supported  activities  with  employment  or  mobility. 
Social  groups  for  which  there  is  no  expectation  of  integration  into  the  labour 
market  (e.g.  pension  age  people)  or  types  of  intervention  which  do  not  aim 
directly or indirectly at integration in the labour market (such as for instance the 
provision of food) could therefore not be supported if the instrument was part of 
the ESF. As all other instruments under cohesion policy, this instrument should to 
be implemented under shared management and should cover all Member States.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
This document examines the range of interventions the Fund for European Aid to 
the Most Deprived, FEAD could support.  

The precursor to the envisaged instrument is the programme of aid for the most 
deprived people (MDP), which was created in 1987 to make a meaningful use of 
the  then  agricultural  surpluses  by  making  them  available  to  Member  States 
wishing to use them as food aid for the most deprived persons of the Community. 
Successive reforms of the common agricultural policy mean that EU agricultural 
commodity  markets  are  expected  to  remain  balanced  -  on  average  -  over  the 
outlook period (2011-2020), without the need for market intervention. With the 
expected  absence  of  intervention  stocks,  the  MDP  has  thus  lost  the  rationale 
underpinning it and will be discontinued with the completion of the 2013 annual 
plan.  Yet  over  the  years,  the  scheme  had  become  an  important  source  of 
provisions  for  organisations  working  in  direct  contact  with  the  least  fortunate 
people of our society providing them food (see also Annex 2). 

The  General  Court  ruled  on  13  April  2011  on  a  complaint  brought  by  Germany 
and supported by Sweden, against the monetary allocations granted to Member 
States  under  the  2009  MDP  for  purchases  of  food  on  the  market.  The  ruling  is 
basically  stating  that  in  order  to  comply  with  Article  27  of  the  Single  CMO 
Regulation  applicable  at  the  time,  with  the  exception  of  specific  market 
circumstances that do not prevail today, food supplies under the scheme should 
essentially come from public storage only. 

The  successive  Commission  proposals  for  a  revised  scheme  faced  a  blocking 
majority in the Council (DE, DK, NL, SW, UK, CZ and AT). This deadlock could only 
be overcome thanks to a joint DE/FR declaration, supporting the continuation of 
the  programme  until  2013,  but  stating  that  "the  conditions  are  not  met  for  a 
proposal  of  a  new  program  for  a  period  post  2013  to  be  presented  by  the 
Commission and adopted by the Council". The Commission for its part said that it 
"will take account of this strong opposition to any legal and financial proposal of 
such  a  program  in  the  future"  but  "without  prejudice  to  its  right  of  initiative 
under the Treaty". 

1.2.  Organization and timing of preparatory work 

An Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) was set-up in April 2012. It met 5 times, 
the last being on 6 August 2012. The following DGs and services participated at 
least  once  in  the  meetings  of  the  ISSG  chaired  by  EMPL:  AGRI,  BUDG,  COMP, 
ECFIN, SJ, REGIO, RTD, SANCO and SG. 

The IA-Board discussed a draft version of this document on 19 September 2012. 
In line with the recommendations of the Board the context for this initiative was 
clarified.  The  problem  definition  was  revised  to  facilitate  the  understanding  of 
achievements of the MDP in the past and the relevance of the lessons learned to 
the  proposed  new  instrument.  Furthermore  also  feedback  from  civil  society, 
stakeholder  organisations  and  public  authorities  has  been  integrated  more 
systematically to demonstrate that there is a need for such an instrument.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
The  objectives  have  been  reviewed  and  better  explained.  The  presentation  and 
the analysis of the options have been checked, so to make sure that the impacts 
of  the  options  become  clear.  The  monitoring  and  evaluation  section  was 
expanded.  The  links  between  the  indicators  chosen  and  the  specific  and 
operational  objectives  are  clarified.  In  adding  a  comprehensive  presentation  of 
the  implementation  arrangements  in  a  new  annex  3  it  is  expected  that 
misunderstandings  and  ambiguity  on  consistency  and  coherence  of  the  new 
instrument with Member States activities have been cleared. 

1.3.  Consultations  

Due to time constraints related to the preparation of instruments for 2014-2020 
and prolonged debates on the rationale and budget in 2012-2013 of the existing 
programme of aid for the most deprived people (MDP), it has not been possible to 
organise  a  full-fledged  consultation  on  the  new  proposed  instrument.  Yet 
discussions in Council, Parliament and with civil society and local authorities on 
the current aid for most deprived people programme (MDP) provide meaningful 
insights and ideas for the future. The Commission has been open to stakeholders' 
views (see below and Annex 4). 

Opinion of the civil society and local authorities 

The  proposed  significant  cut  of  the  support  provided  under  the  MDP  scheme 
(from € 480 million to € 113.5 mio) in 2012 following the General Court ruling of 
13  April  2011  led  to  a  large  number  of  negative  reactions  from  civil  society 
organisations,  stressing  the  importance  of  this  support  and  pleading  for  a 
continuation  of  the  scheme  at  a  time  that  the  needs  are  increasing.  The 
Federation of European Food Banks (FEBA) estimated that this cut would result 
in  an  immediate  fall  back  of  over  a  third  of  the  aid  they  deliver.  Some  charities 
also launched a web based campaign to save the programme1. Regional and local 
authorities'  representatives  also  reacted.  For  instance,  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions in its opinion on the MFF called for the continuation of the MDP in 2014-
20202;  the  AMGF  (Association  of  Mayors  of  Large  French  Cities)  called  on  each 
mayor  to  mobilise  its  deputies  on  this  matter3.  During  2011  and  2012  the 
Commission  did  receive  a  number  of  letters  or  parliamentary  questions  raising 
this matter.  

Subsequently  a  compromise  was  reached  in  Council  to  continue  the  scheme  for 
the years 2012 and 2013 with a yearly budget of € 500 million. The Red Cross, 
large  charities  such  as  Caritas  and  Eurodiaconia,  civil  society  organisations 
representing  food  banks,  as  well  as  organisations  working  with  children  and 
homeless people have continued to plea for support to be provided beyond 2013. 
In  April  2012  eight  umbrella  organisations  wrote  to  the  social  attachés  in  the 

1 http://sauvonslepead.restosducoeur.org/?page_id=571  & 
http://www.eurofoodbank.eu/portail/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158%3
Adans-la-riche-europe-il-y-a-encore-des-gens-qui-ont-faim&catid=2&Itemid=27&lang=en 
2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:054:0040:0048:EN:PDF 
3 http://www.grandesvilles.org/actualites/bref/amgvf-se-rejouit-maitien-pead-pour-2012-2013 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Permanent Representations of the Member States 4. In June 2012 the Red Cross, 
Eurodiaconia, Caritas Europa and FEBA wrote on the same issue to the President 
of the European Council. Several regional and local authorities also called for the 
programme to be continued after 2013 at, at least, the same level of financing5.  

In April 2012 FEBA issued a communication6 summing up briefly its wishes for a 
future food aid mechanism. These are:  

1.  A much higher financial allocation (i.e more than the 360 million € / year 

foreseen); 

2.  No co-financing by Member States; 
3.  Focus on food distribution to the most deprived, rather than vouchers or 

money; 

4.  Continued  use  of  the  large  food  aid  networks,  as  stakeholders  and 

partners; 

5.  Financial  support  for  these  networks  participating  in  public  service 

delivery and working in the field of social economy and solidarity; 

6.  The creation of a specific instrument, "sui generis", for food aid. 

In addition in December 2011, 11 umbrella organisations had already written to 
the  Commissioner  and  the  Director  General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
Inclusion asking for progress to be made towards an EU Homelessness Strategy7. 
The EU Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee have 
also supported this call8 . 

Two  meetings  with  umbrella  associations  of  organisations  representing 
beneficiaries and actual end-beneficiaries were held in order to discuss rationale, 
mission  and  scope  of  the  new  instrument.  The  minutes  of  these  meetings  are 
given  in  annex  4.  The  MDP  annual  stakeholders  meetings  held  in  Brussels  on  5 
July 2012 was also an occasion to present and discuss their views on the future9. 
In  general  the  different  organisations  welcome  the  possible  broadening  of  the 
scope of the instrument beyond food aid, the fact of placing people at the centre 
of the instrument but regret the smaller budget allocated. 

Positions of Member States 

The  discussions  in  the  Council  on  the  MDP  give  some  indications  on  what  their 
positions  on  a  new  programme  might  be,  although  these  discussions  did  not 
reflect the envisaged rationale, mission and scope of the new instrument.  

4 Available at: http://www.eurofoodbank.eu/portail/images/_FEBA/Documents/2012-EAPN%20Food-aid-
prog-EOs-letter-to-perm-rep-02-04-2012.pdf  
5 See for instance the Association of Mayors of Large French Cities at: 
http://www.grandesvilles.org/actualites/bref/amgvf-se-rejouit-maitien-pead-pour-2012-2013 
6http://www.eurofoodbank.eu/portail/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151%3Aposition
-de-la-faba-sur-le-futur-programme-europeen-daide-alimentaire-aux-plus-demunis-avril-
2012&catid=2%3Aevenements&Itemid=27&lang=en  
7  http://www.eapn.eu/en/news-a-events/news/other-news/2992-towards-an-eu-homelessness-strategy-
joint-letter-from-feantsa-and-european-ngos  
8 CoR (2010)  and EESC (2011) 
9 See: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/most-deprived-persons/meetings/index_en.htm  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Seven  Member  States  (DE,  DK,  NL,  SE,  UK,  CZ10 and  AT)  have  argued  that  food 
support  is  more  suited  to  social  policy  and  is  a  national  competence.  Other 
Member  States  argued  strongly  in  support  of  the  scheme  on  social  and  political 
grounds.  

A number of Member States (BE, BG, EL, ES, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO and SI) 
issued a statement11 in December 2011, in which they requested the continuation 
of the MDP following 2013. 

In  their  2012  National  Reform  Programmes  at  least  half  of  the  member  states 
have  referred  to  homelessness  as  a  priority  issue  of  their  social  inclusion 
policies.  

The Compact for Growth and Jobs adopted by the European Council on 29 June 
2012 notes that "in the implementation of the country-specific recommendations, 
Member States will put particular emphasis on […] tackling unemployment and 
addressing  the  social  consequences  of  the  crisis  effectively  […and]  developing 
and  implementing  effective  policies  to  combat  poverty  and  support  vulnerable 
groups".12 

Position of the European Parliament  

The  European  Parliament  has  repeatedly  and  across  all  political  groups 
expressed  strong  support  for  the  continuation  of  the  food  aid  programme13 for 
achieving  better  social  cohesion  in  Europe.  Some  MEPs  have,  however  warned 
against a trade-off between the new instrument and the ESF as taking the funds 
for the new programme from the ESF would in their view mean solidarity of the 
poor  with  the  poor.  In  addition,  the  European  Parliament  called  for  an  EU 
strategy  on  homelessness-  first  in  a  Written  Declaration  (2010)  and  then  in  a 
resolution14  which was adopted in 2011.  

2. Problem definition 

2.1.  Lessons learned from the implementation of the MDP 

While  the  proposed  instrument  is  a  new  one,  it  is  relevant  to  look  at  the  still 
existing MDP programme. Although the MDP has a different 'raison d'être', using 
agricultural  surpluses,  some  of  the  motivation  to  envisage  the  new  instrument 
stems from positive experience and effects linked to the MDP. Therefore learning 
from  this  experience  is  important.  Furthermore,  the  MDP  is,  apart  from  small-
scale projects supported by the EU as social experimentation, the only European 
Union  programme  currently  reaching  directly  the  most  deprived  persons  in  the 
EU.  

10 CZ supported this line in spite of the fact that it makes use of the programme, however only with requests 
far below the theoretical share of CZ from the budget. 
11 ST 18593/11 ADD 2 
12 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf.  
13 Resolutions from 7 July 2011, 19 January 2012 and debate from 29 March 2012. 
14 link to the EP resolution 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
An extensive study of the operation of the MDP since 1987 was carried out in the 
context of the Impact Assessment Study that accompanied the 2008 Commission 
proposal  to  review  the  scheme15.  Particularly  relevant  is  also  the  report  of  the 
European Court of Auditors on the MDP16. The annual reports of the participating 
Member  States  also  contain  useful  information  and  a  body  of  circumstantial 
evidence  is  available  at  the  level  of  the  organisations  delivering  the  food  aid  to 
deprived people.  

Key points 

On the basis of the lessons learned from the functioning of the MDP, the following 
issues  can  be  pointed  at  as  being  relevant  for  the  possible  set-up  of  a  new 
instrument.  

•  Reliability  of  the  programme.  The  MDP  has  never  sought  to  resolve  all 
food  poverty  in  the  Member  States.  Yet  during  the  consultation  of  the 
charitable  organisations,  all  insisted  that  the  predictability  of  the  supply 
was  an  essential  element  for  their  operations.  In  fact,  for  many  Member 
States and organizations the MDP represents the main source of support 
for food aid (Poland - 90%, Hungary – 84%, Italy – 68%)17. Even in France 
the  programme  represents  for  the  different  organisations  involved 
between 22% and 55% of the products distributed18.  

•  Leverage  effect:  though  there  is  formally  no  co-financing  with  national 
means,  in  practice  there  is  a  considerable  leverage  effect  as  the 
organisations  provide  the  bulk  of  the  means  for  running  the  food  aid 
distribution and parts of the food aid itself.  

The table below shows the estimated value of the resources mobilised by 
the  French  Food  banks  for  the  years  2010  and  2011  (source  –  2010  and 
2011 reports). The resources mobilised by the food banks are essentially 
non-financial, in-kind contributions of goods and voluntary labour (93% of 
the total resources). Financial resources were estimated to represent only 
7% of the total value of the resources handled. It shows a multiplier effect 
(total resources versus MDP inputs) of around 3. 

15 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/freefood/impact/index_en.htm 
16 ECA, 2009.  L’aide alimentaire de l’Union Européenne en faveur des personnes démunies: une évaluation 
des objectifs, ainsi que des moyens et des méthodes utilisés. Rapport spécial n° 6. 
17 Source: FEBA 
18 Dossier presse of 19 September 2011 prepared by the French Federation of Food Banks, the 
French Red Cross, the Restos du Coeur and the Secours Populair. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Table 1 Resources19 mobilised by the French Food Banks (source 
2010 and 2011 reports of the federation of food banks) 

Value 
(€ millions) 

In kind resources 

Food -  MDP

Food - Others

Voluntary work

Other in kind contributions

Total in kind

Financial resources 

MDP

Others

Total financial resources

106 

187 

37 

2 

333 

0 

23 

24 

TOTAL RESOURCES MOBILISED 

357 

The  ratio  of  financial  resources  to  the  total  resources20 gives  another 
measure of effectiveness. In France this is 1:15. This ratio varies across the 
different  Member  States  but  remains  high:  IT  1:9,  PL  1:20,  LT  1:24,  PT 
1:16.  It  shows  the  great  reliance  the  charitable  organisations  involved 
have on in-kind contributions including voluntary labour.  

•  Long-term  perspective.  The  programme  is  currently  based  on  annual 
plans.  Yet  the  organisations  engaged  in  food  distribution  activities  and 
providing  ancillary  services  are  largely  dependent  on  volunteer  work. 
Volunteers expect predictability as to their inputs. Such organisations find 
it difficult to maintain volunteer commitments in cases of rapidly changing 
volumes of activity.  

•  Variety  of  foods  distributed.  Originally  the  products  to  be  distributed 
were  limited  to  those  for  which  intervention  applies.  The  reform  of  the 
CAP reduced the number of these products. This limitation made it more 
difficult  to  offer  nutritionally  balanced  packages.  Currently  the  MDP  is 
rather  used  as  a  source  of  food  products  with  a  long  conservation  to  be 
complemented by more perishable goods from other sources. 

•  Reinforcing monitoring and reporting. In the absence of clear definitions 
and reporting and evaluation rules, there is considerable uncertainty as to 
the  reach  and  the  impact  of  the  programme.  The  annual  implementation 
reports  point  to  approximately  18  millions  cases  of  support  per  year. 
Considering  that  the  same  person  might  have  benefitted  repeatedly  (and 
counted  each  time)  the  number  of  people  who  was  actually  supported is 
likely to be lower (see annex 2).  

19 Figures may not add up because of rounding. 
20 Source: FEBA 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Conclusions from the European Court of Auditors' assessment of the 
MDP  

The European Court of Auditors examined the programme in four Member States 
(Italy,  France,  Poland  and  Spain).  These  represent  72%  of  the  allocations.  The 
audit was centred on the 2006-2008 annual plans21.  

The  audit  focused  on  the  validity  of  the  intended  aims  in  the  context  of  an 
evolving market and social situation, the adequacy of the means made available, 
the  programme’s  impact,  and  the  administrative  and  management  procedures. 
The main conclusions were: 

•  The fact that the programme is managed at operational level by thousands 
of charitable organisations, mainly staffed by volunteers and dealing with 
an  unstable  and  not  easily  monitored  target  population,  poses  particular 
challenges for the administration of the scheme.  

•  Monitoring  and  reporting  systems  at  Commission  and  Member  States 
levels have to be improved, as well as the methodology for allocating the 
financial resources between the Member States.  

•  Finally,  the  tendering  procedures  employed  by  the  Member  States  differ 
considerably  and  do  not  ensure  equal  access  to  all  EU  operators  and  the 
broadest  competition.  Thus  there  is  the  risk  that  best  conditions  are  not 
achieved  always  for  products  withdrawn  from  intervention  stocks  or  for 
those  purchased  on  the  open  market.  It  is  also  considered  that  the 
bartering arrangements used are cumbersome and difficult to control. 

The Court made a number of recommendations concerning the appropriateness 
of financing the programme under CAP expenditure, the need for increasing the 
impact  of  the  measure,  the  integration  of  the  programme  into  the  social  policy 
framework, the expansion of the variety of the products distributed, the need for 
improving  the  distribution  methods  as  well  as  management,  monitoring  and 
tendering procedures. 

Beneficiaries' views and perceptions 

Subsequently  a  few  examples  taken  from  annual  reports  and  organisation's 
publications, illustrating the benefits and impacts of the MDP.  

The Restos du Coeur estimate that approximately half of its aid recipients in one 
given  year  do  not  return  the  year  after.  The  little  extra  help  these  persons 
received allowed them to rebound.22 Still, these figures are rough estimates and 
several institutions felt not able to provide any such indications.  

2011 annual activity report of the French federation of Food banks 

21 http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8038724.PDF 
22 Presentation to the annual stakeholders meeting of 5 July 2012. 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/most-deprived-persons/meetings/05-07-2012/restos-du-
coeur_fr.pdf 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
A  la  Banque  Alimentaire  d’Auvergne,  une  chargée  d’insertion  accompagne  8 
salariés par an en chantier d’insertion et les aide à bâtir un projet professionnel : 
âgés  de  26  à  54  ans,  ils  travaillent  à  la  Banque  Alimentaire  en  contrats  aidés 
comme chauffeurs-livreurs-magasiniers pour une durée d’un an ; ils y acquièrent 
une  qualification  supplémentaire  qui  a  permis  à  la  moitié  d’entre  eux  de  se 
reclasser en 2011. 

"On retrouve petit à petit les repères de la vie active. Se réinsérer tout en aidant des 
gens  en  difficulté  alors  qu’on  est  soi-même  dans  le  besoin,  c’est  valorisant."    -
Vincent, 33 ans 

L'aide  alimentaire  à  la  Croix-rouge  Francaise  –  De  l'équilibre  nutritionel  à 
l'accompagnement social23 

Monique - 49 ans mère de 8 enfants 

“ Je viens ici une fois par semaine depuis un mois. Mes grands enfants ne sont pas au 
courant de ma situation… Suite à la séparation d’avec mon mari et à une période de 
chômage, je me suis retrouvée à la rue avec mon plus jeune fils… Malgré quelques 
missions d’intérim ponctuelles, j’ai du mal à m’en sortir et l’aide de la Croix-Rouge 
est  vitale  pour  moi.  Avec  ce  qu’on  me  donne  ici,  j’arrive  à  tenir  une  semaine.  Les 
bénévoles ont toujours un petit mot gentil, on est bien accueilli. ” 

FairShare24 

One beneficiary of the Eat Well Live Well programme is Tim, who worked in the 
RAF as an engineer for 12 years and the NHS for 10 years before circumstances 
led to him being forced to move and become homeless: 

"Food was by far the most important reason for me to visit the centres. Also, finding 
a place to have a shower and get clean clothes. Being somewhere warm and getting 
something good to eat. I got involved with  volunteering  at  FareShare  through  the 
Shift  Co-ordinator.  They  knew  I was  on  the  street,  and  they  told  me  FareShare 
needed  some  help  in  delivering  food.  At  first  I  started  giving  a  hand  to  help  the 
delivery and collection on a Tuesday. FareShare held a training week for staff and 
volunteers, and I was asked to stay on by the Operations Manager and give input, 
because of my experience in the RAF and NHS – especially around health and safety, 
and also because I was still actively on the street. 

Being asked to stay and give my input in the running of the operations was really 
important to me. Soon after this, I started volunteering a lot more regularly, even 
while  I  was  still  on  the  street.  At  FareShare,  as  part  of  their  volunteer  training, 
they’ve given me basic food hygiene training, and fork lift truck training. Also, I’ve 
really been able to use some of the skills I used before in previous jobs." 

Through his experience at FareShare Tim’s prospects are looking a lot brighter; 
he now lives in his own accommodation and is working full-time again. 

23 Dated 17/11/2010. Available at: www.croix-rouge.fr  
24 http://www.fareshare.org.uk/case-studies/ 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Impact of cooking workshops25.  

Les  professionnels  de  la  santé  et  du  secteur  social  soulignent  deux  aspects 
importants à leurs yeux. En favorisant l’établissement de nouveaux liens sociaux, 
d’échanges  interpersonnels,  de  coopérations…  les  ateliers  peuvent  réduire  le 
risque  d’isolement  et  limiter  certains  troubles  psychologiques  liés  à  l’inactivité 
(ennui,  autodévalorisation,  repli  sur  soi,  dépression)  et  qui  sont  susceptibles 
d’induire des dérèglements du comportement alimentaire : grignotage d’aliments 
gras  et  sucrés  (recherche  de  réconfort),  épisodes  boulimiques,  etc.  Un  second 
atout réside dans la réappropriation de repères : au travers des ateliers proposés, 
les  participants  pourront  être  sensibilisés  à  l’importance  de  structurer  leur 
journée  alimentaire  (nombre  et  horaires  des  repas), d’être  conscient  des 
quantités  ingérées,  de  prévoir  et  d’organiser  l’achat  puis  la  préparation  des 
aliments, etc. 

Targeting of MDP support 

The current MDP regulation does not define the most deprived persons. It is up to 
the  Member  States  to  fix  their  own  targeting  criteria;  some  do  so,  while  others 
leave  it  to  the  charities  or  NGOs  to  determine  which  persons  to  provide  with  a 
meal or a food basket. 

The "at risk of poverty rate - AROP" indicator is used in the present programme 
as  a  proxy  to  allocate  resources  between  Member  States.  This  indicator 
represents  the  share  of  people  with  an  income  below  60 %  of  the  national 
"equalised median income"; one can expect that the final beneficiaries will belong 
to this group, but of course not all people of this group are actually targeted with 
the MDP. 

The ECA report already pointed to the diversity of the populations served by food 
aid.  The  examples  given  above  also  serve  to  illustrate  it.  This  variability  is  also 
demonstrated by the surveys a number of food banks conducted (see also Annex 
5) Examples for this diversity are:  

o  Gender:  mostly women in FR and PT but mostly men in the UK; 
o  Age:  mostly  adults  between  26  and  50  years  in  FR  but  more  than  two 

thirds older people (66+) in PT. 

o  Income: in FR 24% dispose of less than 500€ per month. In PT this is 80%, 
49% have even less than 250€.  In PT over one quarter of the recipients 
did not have enough to eat at least once per week over the previous three 
months. 

In  fact,  given  the  variability  of  poverty  in  the  national  contexts  it  has  proven 
impossible to characterise and quantify at EU level the most deprived people by a 
limited set of statistics. Ultimately the only common characteristic is possibly the 

25. Etude réalisée pour le Haut Commissariat aux solidarités actives contre la pauvreté dans le 
cadre de l'appel à projets « Expérimentations Sociales » Octobre 2009. EPISTEME – 10, rue de la 
Paix – 75002 PARIS.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
fact that these are individuals and families beyond the social stigma of asking for 
direct material aid26.  

Targeting  the  aid  through  a  set  of  criteria  set  at  EU  level  should,  in  theory, 
increase the impact. However, all stakeholders consulted stressed the need for a 
degree of liberty in determining who is in need. In particular, they have stressed 
that they often provide assistance to people in "temporary need", and so often not 
yet  recognised  by  the  national  social  services  as  being  in  difficulty.  The 
overwhelming opinion expressed in the public consultation undertaken in 2007 
was that no differentiation should be made between populations in need. By its 
very nature, such a scheme has to adapt to very different situations in the various 
participating Member States. The experience with MDP suggests that the existing 
open approach is found adequate with beneficiaries. There are no indications that 
further  selectivity  on  the  European  level  would  create  improvements.  At  the 
contrary,  introducing  standards  at  Community  level  could  hinder  the  necessary 
flexibility  the  programme  must  preserve  in  order  to  adapt  to  the  varied 
circumstances  of  the  most  deprived.  In  addition,  detailed  criteria would  impose 
heavier administrative burdens and increase the cost of assistance, as compliance 
with criteria must be checked.  

2.2.  Description of the problem 

Poverty – a challenge for Europe 

The  Europe  2020  strategy  has  set  ambitious  targets  also  in  terms  of  poverty 
reduction. By 2020 Europe should have 20 million less persons at risk of poverty 
or  social  exclusion.  Yet  despite  significant  structural  support  to  help  the 
population to adapt to a changing economic context, poverty levels increase since 
2009.  European  citizens  thereby  consider  the  reduction  of  poverty,  next  to 
fighting  unemployment,  as  the  most  important  social  issue  on  which  the  EU 
should act.27 Hence the need for the Union to address this problem.  

During  the  discussions  with  the  charitable  organisations,  all  insisted  that  the 
predictability of the European support via the MDP was an essential element for 
their operations. It allows the continued mobilisation of volunteers and facilitates 
the access to other sources of funding or contributions in kind. A termination of 
the  MDP  without  substitution  would  clearly  threaten  this  acquis  besides  being 
potentially perceived as a demonstration of the lack of interest of the European 
Union in pressing social questions. Currently more and more social stakeholders 
and  EU  citizens  perceive  the  EU  as  a  threat  for  their  personal  and  collective 
protection28.  Action  at  European  level  is  required,  all  the  more  so,  as  a  lack  of 

26 As  an  illustration,  a  study  conducted  by  the  French  Ministry  of  Labour  in  2011  shows  that  half  of  the 
people eligible for the RSA, an income support scheme, were not benefiting from it. Among those who knew 
they  were  eligible  or  were  not  sure,  7%  did  not  apply  "as  a  matter  of  principle".  See:  http://www.rsa-
revenu-de-solidarite-active.com   
27 Special Eurobarometer 350, Eurobarometer 73.5: The European Social Fund (Nov. 2010). 
These results are even more important as poverty reduction per se is clearly going beyond the 
mandate of the ESF.  http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=159&langId=en  
28 Policy Brief 5.4 EU Governance and Social Policy: larger and larger uncertainties looming. 
Available at:  http://www.gusto-project.eu  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
social cohesion would hinder the Union's further development and undermine its 
legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.  

At  the  same  time  there  is  also  a  lack  of  adequate  evidence  which  complicates 
policy  co-ordination  at  EU  level  despite  the  presence  and  acknowledgement  of 
common  goals.  Importantly,  ensuring  such  adequacy  requires  not  only  the 
generation of new information (such as comparable statistics, sufficient analytical 
knowledge),  but  also  effective  sharing  of  existing  ones  (such  as  available  good 
practices)  through  mutual  learning  processes  such  as  periodic  monitoring, 
evaluation and peer review. To fully use such evidence stakeholders should reach 
a common understanding of the meaning of essential elements of the status quo. 
This  is  a  prerequisite  for  the  elaboration  of  consensual  policy  solutions. 
Therefore  good  policy  making  requires  an  active  involvement  of  all  relevant 
stakeholders throughout the policy process.  

Indicators of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion 

The Europe 2020 strategy poverty reduction target is expressed in terms of the 
population at risk of poverty or exclusion (herein referred to as AROPE for short). 
This is the combination of three components29: 

•  People at-risk-of-poverty after social transfers (AROP);  
•  Severely materially deprived people (SMD);  
• 

Jobless households (JLH).   

The  use  of  a  combination  is  considered  necessary  because  no  single  definition 
fully  captures  the  multi-faceted  nature  of  poverty  and  its  variability  in  the 
national contexts30. 

Overall pattern and trends 

As the map below shows, poverty and social exclusion31  are not uniformly spread 
across  the  EU.  In  general,  problems  are  more  acute  in  eastern  and  southern 
Member States.  

 For 

and 

definitions 

descriptions 

29
Eurostat 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators  
30  See  also 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=113&langId=en&pubId=6176&type=2&furtherPubs=yes.  
31 All data in this section are taken from Eurostat. 
 See  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators for 
more information on Europe 2020 indicators and the data. 

the  Employment  and  Social  Developments 

in  Europe  2011 

review,  Ch3: 

indicators, 

these 

see 

at: 

of 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of the population at risk of poverty or 
social exclusion (in % of the total population, 2010) 

Source: Eurostat 

In 2010, nearly one quarter of all Europeans (116 million) were at risk of poverty 
or social exclusion. This is about 2 million more than in 2009. Data at EU level are 
not yet fully available for 2011 but the trend continues worsening in all MS where 
data is available but RO (+1,0 pp in FI, +2,2 pp in SI, +2.7 pp in LV, +1,3 pp in CZ).  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Developments in the risk of poverty or exclusion (AROPE) and its 
components in the EU (2005 – 2010) 

Source: Eurostat, EU SILC. Note that the Jobless Households indicator refers to the age group 0 to 
59.  

Legend: AROPE=Population at risk of poverty or social exclusion, AROP=People at-risk-of-poverty 
after social transfers, SMD=Severe material deprivation, JLH=Jobless households 

During the first phase of the current financial and economic crisis, from 2007 to 
2009,  social  protection  benefits  increased  relative  to  GDP  in  practically  all 
Member  States  (the  highest  increases  being  seen  in  Lithuania,  Estonia,  Ireland 
and  Latvia).  The  situation  in  the  period  2009  –  2012  has  been  different:  social 
protection  benefits  in kind  are  expected  to  fall  relative to  GDP  in most  Member 
States  (by  almost  3  pp  of  GDP  in  Lithuania  and  Hungary)  while  cash  social 
protection benefits should decrease relative to GDP in nearly half of the Member 
States (by as much as 2 to 4 pp of GDP in the Baltic States)32. 

The three components are discussed separately below. 

People at risk of poverty 

The  first  component  is  the  number  of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  after  social 
transfers.  About  81  million  European  citizens  (16.4%  of  the  total  population) 
were considered at "risk of poverty after social transfers"33 in 2010. As opposed 
to the other two indicators measuring absolute poverty, this indicator measures 
relative  income  poverty,  defined  as  at  risk  of  poverty  those  persons  within  a 
Member State which dispose of less than 60% of the average disposable income.  

32 EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review – December 2011. 

33 Eurostat 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
The risk of poverty increased in around half of the Member States, with the most 
notable  rises  (of  around  1  pp  or  more)  in  Denmark,  Luxembourg,  Slovakia  and 
Spain. In contrast rates decreased by around 4 pp in Estonia and Latvia, and by 
some  2  pp)  in  Romania  and  the  UK.  However,  the  trends  in  the  AROP  indicator 
must  be  treated  with  caution,  since  the  risk  of  poverty  refers  to  a  relative 
threshold determined by the general level of income and its distribution over the 
whole  population.  This  threshold  may  change  from  one  year  to  another  as 
individual  incomes  change  suddenly,  as  has  occurred  since  the  beginning  of  the 
crisis in many countries. 

Part  of  the  changes  reported  on  the  AROP  indicator  are  due  to  the  fact  that 
various sources of income are not all hit at the same time following an economic 
shock.  Work  incomes  (i.e.  wages  and  salaries)  are  the  first  to  decrease  as  the 
situation on the labour market deteriorates, while other sources of income, such 
as  pensions  and  social  benefits,  do  not  adjust  immediately.  As  work  incomes 
decrease while others remain unchanged, there is distortion in the overall income 
distribution  and  the  median  income  and  therefore  the  poverty  threshold  falls. 
People with an income previously slightly below the poverty line may now move 
above the line, though in reality their situation has not changed, or has even got 
worse. 

Bearing  the  above  explanation  in  mind,  the  poverty  threshold  declined 
dramatically  in  Ireland  between  the  EU  SILC  survey  results  for  2008  and  2010, 
falling around 13.5%, but also fell a notable 5.4% in Latvia, 2.7% in Lithuania and 
2.6%  in  the  UK.  In  such  a  context,  decreases in  the  poverty  rate  simultaneously 
with a drop in the poverty threshold, as has been observed in Latvia and the UK, 
do  not  mean  that  the  situation  of  people  improved  compared  to  the  previous 
reference period and hence should not to be interpreted as positive outcomes. 

Severe material deprivation 

The  second  concept  is  that  of  severe  material  deprivation.  Severe  material 
deprivation is measured as the inability to afford at least 4 items within a list of 
nine34. This indicator allows capturing broader aspects of exclusion, providing an 
absolute measure of poverty. Eight per cent of all European citizens or about 40 
million  live  in  conditions  of  severe  material  deprivation  and  cannot  afford  a 
number of necessities considered essential in Europe to live a decent life. 

Between 2008 and 2010, severe material deprivation rose dramatically in Latvia 
and  Lithuania  (more  than  7  pp)  and  considerably  in  Estonia  and  Hungary 
(around  4  pp).  It  also  rose  between  1  and  2  pp  in  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Malta  and 
Spain.  In  contrast,  severe  material  deprivation  declined  or  remained  broadly 
stable in around half of the Member States, most notably in Austria and Romania 
(with  declines  of  around  2  pp)  Poland  (down  3.5  pp)  and  above  all  Bulgaria 

34 The measure concerns the situation after transfers and relates to the (in)ability of households to afford 
to:  pay  their  rent,  mortgage  or  utility  bills,  hire  purchase  instalments  or  other  loan  payments;  keep  their 
home adequately warm; face unexpected expenses; eat meat or proteins every second day; go on one week's 
annual  holiday  away  from  home;  buy  a  colour  television;  buy  a  car;  buy  a  telephone  (including  mobile 
phone);  and  buy  a  washing  machine.  http://www.socialsituation.eu/monitoring-report/material-
deprivation/copy_of_indicators-of-material-deprivation.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
(down  6  pp).  Once  again  this  highlights  the  strong  differences  in  developments 
across Member States in terms of the impact of the crisis and its effect on poverty 
and  deprivation.  Signs  of  the  worsening  situation  following  the  crisis  are  more 
clearly evident in the trends of the severe material deprivation component, which 
is  timelier  in  its  response  to  shocks  and  has  risen  markedly  in  several  Member 
States. 

Persons living in household with very low work intensity 

The  most  immediately  evident  impact  of  the  crisis  has  been  the  growing 
exclusion from the labour market, which is manifestly apparent in the component 
of AROPE focused on the share of people living in jobless households.  

Access  to  employment  is  an  important  element  to  get  out  of  poverty  and  social 
exclusion. The clear downward trend in unemployment lasting several years has 
been reversed in 2009. In 2010, 38 million European below 60 years of age (10% 
of  this  age  group  )  lived  in  a  household  with  no  or  very  low  work  intensity35. 
Indeed,  a  clear  majority  of  Member  States  have  experienced  rises  to  various 
degrees in the low work intensity component, compared to increases in only half 
of the Member States for the other components. For the EU as a whole, the share 
of persons living in jobless households (defined as households with zero or very 
low  work  intensity)  increased  from  9  %  to  10  %  between  2008  and  2010.  The 
situation has worsened significantly in several Member States, with an increase of 
1 pp or more in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. Among these the rise has been especially 
marked in Estonia, Lithuania and Spain (all up between 3.5 and 4 pp) but above 
all  in  Latvia  (up  7  pp)  and  Ireland  (up  9  pp).  As  a  result,  in  2010  the  share  of 
people living in low work intensity households was around or slightly above 10 
%  in  Belgium,  France,  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Hungary,  Spain  and  the 
United Kingdom, and in Ireland considerably higher with a rate of 23 %. 

Material aspects of poverty 

Food  deprivation,  homelessness  and  lack  of  basic  goods  for  children  are  key 
factors of social exclusion. These were identified based on the answers provided 
to the 2011-2012 Country survey on Active Inclusion (see Annex 6) and on the 
consideration that any future instrument would be focussing on the provision of 
material  assistance.  Addressing  them  requires  provision  of  material  assistance. 
Apart from the MDP, however, material assistance has so far not been addressed 
by Union instruments, such as the ESF.   

Food poverty 

One  of  the  features  of  material  deprivation  is  the  inability  to  access 
appropriate quantities and quality of food.  

The share of the population unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or 
vegetarian equivalent) every second day – something which is defined as a basic 

35 Persons are defined as living in households with very low work intensity if they are aged 0-59 and the 
working age members in the household worked less than 20 % of their potential during the past year. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
need by the World Health Organisation – was 8.7% of the population in 2010. The 
impact of the crisis is illustrated with the situation in Latvia where the number of 
persons  experiencing  food  deprivation  declined  steadily  until  2009  when  the 
trend inverted.  

Figure  3.  Percentage  of  the  population  in  Latvia  unable  to  afford  a  meal 
with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day  

Following the unusually steep rise in agricultural commodity prices, food prices 
in the EU have increased more rapidly than overall inflation since 2006 which is 
alarming  since  low  income  groups  are  more  price-sensitive  for  food  than  other 
groups as it is a basic need (Annex 7). 

Malnutrition is a particular problem for homeless people, although there are few 
studies  on  this  issue.  A  limited  survey36 undertaken  in  the  UK  in  2004  showed 
that  about  65%  of  those  homeless  people  investigated  had  to  make  a  regular 
choice between buying food and paying for other essential needs. The study also 
showed that they do not eat well, in particular going without fruit and vegetables. 
Other  studies,  in  Northern  Ireland37 and  Ireland38,  showed  that  a  greater 
proportion  of  homeless  were  classified  as  underweight,  in  comparison  with  the 
general  population,  as  a  consequence  of  poor  diet.  Eating  irregularly  and 
consuming  unhealthy,  unhygienic  food  are  associated  with  the  poor  health  and 
decreased life expectancy of the homeless. 

Also  children  are  a  particularly  sensitive  population  group  as  regards  food 
poverty.  Poor  eating  patterns  may  induce  reduced  brain  development  and 
capacity  to  learn  as  well  as  determine  future  health-related  problems.  Evidence 
has  shown  that  children  from  poor  families  are  at  higher  risk  of  having 
unbalanced  diets,  particularly  when  there  are  also  other  social  and  family 
difficulties.  Single-parent  children  are  at  greater  risk  of  poverty  and  here  the 

36 Alison Gelder, Housing Justice. January 2004."Struggling to eat well. Homelessness and healthy eating" 
37 Food Standards Agency. 2007. "research into food poverty and homelessness in Northern Ireland". 
Deloitte MCS limited.  
38 Sharon Friel and Catherine Conlon. "Food poverty and policy". April 2004. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
question often arises of access to food. About 5% of the children (aged 16 or less) 
in  the  Union  do  not  have  one  meal  with  meat,  chicken,  fish  or  vegetarian 
equivalent at least once a day simply because they or their parents cannot afford 
it. About the same proportion do not eat fresh fruit or vegetables once per day for 
the same reasons39. In the southern regions of Italy about one youth (17 years of 
age  or  less)  in  ten  is  living  in  a  family  forced  to  limit  significantly  food 
purchases40. 

Homelessness 

A  particularly  severe  form  of  material  deprivation  is  homelessness.  It  is  often  a 
result  of  a  complex  interplay  between  structural,  institutional,  relationship  and 
personal factors. Evidence on the immediate triggers for homelessness suggests 
that  eviction  (mostly  after  rent  arrears),  health  problems  and  relationship  or 
family  breakdown  are  the  most  important  events  leading  to  homelessness  in 
most EU countries. 

The  extent  of  homelessness  is  however  difficult  to  quantify  for  a  number  of 
reasons.  The  homeless  are  underrepresented  in  surveys,  many  of  which  are 
household-based;  there  is  no  EU  formally  accepted  standard  methodology  for 
counting  the  homeless;  and  homelessness  is  often  a  transient  state.  The  ETHOS 
classification  of  homelessness  and  severe  housing  exclusion 41  shows  that 
homelessness  is  a  dynamic  process  and  that  homeless  people  shift  frequently 
from one category into the other. 

Extrapolations  based  on  data  from  some  EU  Member  States  combined  with 
information from the US yield an estimation of 4.1 million people42 in the EU in 
2009/2010.  

While better figures are needed, it is clear that homelessness has been increasing 
due to the social stress of low growth, rising unemployment and fiscal austerity. 

Even  more  worryingly,  a  new  profile  of  homeless  people  is  emerging  which 
consists  of  families  with  children,  young  people  and  people  with  a  migrant 
background43. (See also Annex 8) 

Material deprivation of children 

There are 25.4 million children at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Europe44. 
The  proportion  of  children  living  in  a  household  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion  ranges  from  14-15  %  in  Denmark,  Finland,  Slovenia  and  Sweden  to 
more than 40 % in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania. Overall, children are at greater 

per 

Fondazione 

39 Source: Eurostat  
40Campiglio,  L.  &  G.  Rovati  (eds),  2009.  La  povertà  alimentare  in  Italia:  prima  indagine  quantitativa  e 
qualitative. 
at:  
http://www.bancoalimentare.it/files/documenti/Sintesi_Poverta_alimentare_in_Italia_280909.pdf  
41 http://www.feantsa.org/files/freshstart/Toolkits/Ethos/Leaflet/EN.pdf  
42 Frazer, H., E. Marlier and I. Nicaise, 2010. Feuille de route pour l'inclusion sociale pour l'Europe 2020. 
43 Compilation of data from several Member States forwarded by FEANTSA 
44 The information in this section is mostly taken from the special focus on child poverty drivers 
in the March 2012 EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review. 

sussidiarietà. 

Summary 

available 

299 

p. 

la 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
risk of poverty or social exclusion than the rest of the population (27 % against 
23 % for the total population). Only in a minority of countries (Cyprus, Denmark, 
Finland,  Slovenia,  and  Sweden)  are  children  at  a  lower  risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion than the global population. In other countries, such as Hungary, Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Romania  and  the  United  Kingdom,  the  risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion for children is more than 5 % higher than for the population as a whole.  

The  crisis  has  not  impacted  uniformly  across  the  whole  population.  Often  The 
situation  for  children  and  young  adults,  already  before  the  crisis  in  many 
countries a disadvantaged group, has deteriorated over proportionately.  

The risk of poverty or social exclusion for children increased by 0.9 % between 
2008  and  2010.  The  rise  in  children  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  was 
especially  marked  in  Ireland  (+11  %  for  children  against  +6  %  for  the  total 
population) and Latvia (+9 % for children against +4 % for the total population. 
However  the  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  for  children  also  increased  in 
countries where the overall risk of poverty or social exclusion was stable for the 
population  as  a  whole.  For  example,  it  increased  by  1.7  %  in  Germany  while  it 
decreased by 0.3 % for the total population. 

5.9  %  of  households  in  the  EU  cannot  afford  new  clothes  for  their  children  and 
4.5% not even two pairs of properly fitting shoes (including a pair of all-weather 
shoes). This corresponds to approximately 6 million children. 

Children  suffering  from  material deprivation  are  less  likely  than  their  better-off 
peers  to  do  well  in  school,  enjoy  good  health  and  realise  their  full  potential  as 
adult. 

(See also annex 9) 

2.3. 

Initiatives in the Member States  

All  the  stakeholders  of  the  MDP  strongly  underlined  that  providing  food  aid  or 
other  forms  of  material  assistance,  is  a  first  step  in  a  process  that  potentially 
leads  to  the  social  and  economic  reintegration  of  people  and  better  social 
cohesion  in  and  among  Member  States.  The  services  offered  alongside  food 
include  information,  support  to  access  rights,  health  care,  legal  and  fiscal 
assistance,  recreational  activities,  training  in  budgeting,  cooking  and  nutrition, 
personal development training including nurturing confidence, and setting goals 
as well as training in basic skills or assistance with administrative procedures.  

In order to get a clear picture of the initiatives that exist to provide access to food 
for the most deprived, a questionnaire was submitted to the Member States in the 
context  of  the  2008  Impact  Assessment  for  the  MDP.  The  replies  received  and 
other contributions by NGOs and civil society organisations45 indicate that: 

45 See for instance a study conducted in 2010 on behalf of the Portuguese Food Banks Association 
in cooperation with other institutions. Available at: http://www.bancoalimentar.pt/news/view/269  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
•  Social  support  provided  by  Member  States  and  regional  and  local 
authorities never or rarely focuses specifically on access to food, except for 
subsidies for school canteens, or meals delivered at home to the elderly or 
disabled. 

•  Food  initiatives  that  target  socially  excluded  and  marginal  populations 
tend  to  be  led  by  charitable  organisations,  which  are  supported  by 
donations, sometimes subsidised by local authorities and, more rarely, by 
Member State authorities.  

A  survey  of  the  members  of  the  Italian  network  of  Food  Banks  showed  that  on 
average they offered four different types of services46. A similar situation is noted 
in Portugal where about half the organisations distributing food aid also provide 
other goods than food, and between 20 and 30% give also medicines or financial 
assistance. Nearly half (42%) have activities focusing on children45.  

While  there  are  variations  in  the  roles  of  NGOs  and  the  state  as  providers  of 
services  for  homeless  persons  in  Europe47,  the  predominant  model  is  that  local 
authorities have the main responsibility for enabling and steering such services 
and  NGOs  are  the  main  service  providers,  financed  to  a  large  extent  by 
municipalities. 

Existing services for homeless people in Europe are still to a large extent directed 
at  covering  the  most  urgent  and  basic  needs  of  their  clients.  But  contemporary 
homeless  strategies  and  services  aim  to  minimise  the  need  for  temporary 
accommodation,  to  maximise  efforts  to  prevent  homelessness  and  to  re-house 
homeless people as quickly as possible.  

NGOs and civil society organisations provide a variety of support to children also 
going  beyond  the  provision  of  food  adapted  to  children's  specific  needs  and 
health awareness. The support is – for instance – related to clothing, recreational 
and leisure activities (which remain a challenge for many disadvantaged children 
and  are  essential  to  their  development)  or  parenting  support  (e.g.  awareness 
raising, advice, sometimes combined with play activities involving children).  

2.4.  Who is affected in what ways, and to what extent? 

The  persons  affected  are  the  most  deprived  people  in  the  EU  in  all  EU  Member 
States.  

The  provision  of  goods  which  are  considered  by  most  citizens  as  basic  and  the 
fact that these goods are only provided in quantities which fit for a single person 
or  a  household  implies  that  free-rider  effects  are  very  limited.  Also  given  the  – 
compared  to  the  overall  economy  –  small  size  of  this  segment,  it  is  justified  to 
speak of a niche segment. People not in need do not feel inclined to make use of 
such  services.  That  means  no  measureable  impact  is  expected  on  the  overall 
economy.  

46 Campiglio,  L.  &  G.  Rovati  (eds),  2009.  La  povertà  alimentare  in  Italia:  prima  indagine  quantitativa  e 
qualitative. 
at:  
http://www.bancoalimentare.it/files/documenti/Sintesi_Poverta_alimentare_in_Italia_280909.pdf 
47 Report prepared for the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness. 9-10 December 2010. 

sussidiarietà. 

Fondazione 

Summary 

available 

299 

per 

p. 

la 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
However, even a relatively small instrument might help to provide a stable core 
of  support  around  which  civil  society-driven  schemes,  drawing  on  voluntary 
work, can develop. 

Member States and organisations involved in the distribution of aid for the most 
deprived  are  also  affected  by  being  the  responsible  for  implementing  the 
programme.  

2.5.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

In  accordance  with  the  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  Communication48 of 
June  2011,  the  baseline  scenario  foresees  a  programme  providing  food  to  the 
most  deprived  such  as  the  existing  MDP.  The  goods  are  acquired  centrally  and 
distributed  in  material  form  to  the  beneficiaries  (e.g.  food  banks)  which 
distribute them further to the final beneficiaries.  

The budget allocated is € 2.5 billion over a period of 7 years (2014 – 2020). It is 
estimated  that  this  would  allow  offering  direct  material  assistance  to 
approximately 2.1 million persons per year (Annex 10). Taking into account the 
expected  multiplier  effect  this  would  amount  to  at  least  4.2  million  people 
reached.  This  is  about  10%  of  the  persons  experiencing  severe  material 
deprivation. However, the overall context is that of increasing needs. The current 
economic and financial crisis has a direct negative impact on the social economic 
situation of many European citizens and particularly the weakest.  

At same time by focusing on only one specific type of basic need (food-poverty) 
other  similarly  pressing  and  closely  related  needs  stay  unaddressed.  The 
assistance  given  is  not  embedded  in  a  broader  integrated  approach  to  poverty 
alleviation and fight against social exclusion. As a consequence the sustainability 
of the results achieved and the added value of the instrument are not maximised. 

2.6.  EU right to act  
The  Commission  has  proposed  in  the  MFF  communication  and  in  the  common 
provisions regulation for CSF funds that the successor to the programme of food 
aid for the most deprived people shall be integrated into MFF budget heading 149. 
Article  174  (TFEU)  provides  for  the  Union  to  "promote  its  overall  harmonious 
development".  The  first  subparagraph  defines  the  overall  objective  of  cohesion 
policy  which  is  to  "strengthen  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion". 
Cohesion  policy  is  thus  not  limited  to  acting  on  regional  disparities.  The 

48 See: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/index_en.htm  
49

 A 

for 

Budget 

Europe 

COM(2011)500final. 

2020, 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/MFF_COM-2011-
500_Part_I_en.pdf .  
By  way  of  comparison,  to  help  eligible  households  meet  their  food  needs,  the  US  Department  of 
Agriculture (USDA) offers in-kind assistance through a variety of programmes, including benefits for 
the purchase of groceries through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); coupons or 
electronic  benefit  cards  for  specific  foods  through  the  Special  Supplemental  Nutrition  Assistance 
Program  for  Women,  Infants,  and  Children  (WIC);  and  free  or  reduced-price  meals  through  the 
National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Expenditure on these 4 programmes totalled 
$97 billion in 2011 and accounted for over 90% of USDA food and nutrition assistance expenditure. 

Available 

at:  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
envisaged  programme  would  contribute  to  the  social  cohesion  objective  of 
cohesion policy.  

The legal basis of the proposed new instrument is Article 175 third paragraph of 
the  TFEU  which  makes  provisions  for  specific  actions  outside  the  Structural 
Funds possible. 

The  proposed  new  instrument  is  strongly  anchored  in  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  While  helping  ensure  the  availability  of  emergency  assistance  for 
most deprived people across the Union in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy 
and thus contributing to strengthening social cohesion in the Union, it leaves up 
to Member States and their lower levels of government decisions that should be 
taken  at  their  respective  levels.  The  instrument  will  be  implemented  under 
shared management, with national authorities initiating the planning and taking 
the individual decisions leading to the delivery of the assistance through national 
programmes. 

The  proposed  instrument  and  the  reflections  put  forward  in  the  present 
document  do  not  change  the  general  division  of  competencies  between  the  EU 
and  Member  States  or  between  Member  States  and  lower  level  administrative 
and political entities.  

2.7.  EU added-value 
The  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  is  based 
on a balanced vision of economic growth and social progress based on ambitious 
targets for employment, education and for poverty reduction. Poverty and social 
exclusion are major obstacles to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives. 
The major tool that the EU has in order to overcome unemployment and social 
challenges is the European Social Fund (ESF). It is a structural instrument, which 
labour  market 
in  people  and  their  competences  and 
invests  directly 
opportunities.  Yet  some  of  the  most  vulnerable  Union  citizens  face  very  basic 
needs which will prevent their effective participation in ESF-types of action and 
which need to be addressed through emergency assistance of a different nature 
than measures that can be co-financed from the ESF.  

European financial support can demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the 
poor  people,  thus  taking  up  on  the  broad  request  by  European  citizens.  It  can 
encourage  the  exchange  of  experience  and  information  about  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of actions and it increases awareness of the situation in which these groups 
are by actually asking Member State's representatives to talk about the situation and 
to  develop  a  sort  of  strategy  (Operational  Programme)  how  best  to  address  the 
immediate needs of these people. Finally, it allows the Union to lead by example. The 
proposed  FEAD  will  also  be  a  structural  instrument  in  the  sense  that  it  will  be 
available  and  programmed  over  the  2014-2020  period.  It  will  complement  and  not 
overlap  with  the  already  existing  cohesion  policy  tools  by  offering  temporary 
remedial  actions,  enabling  most  deprived  members  of  society  to  start  on  a  recovery 
path.  

By addressing pressing needs for food and – subject to the selected policy option 
– for other related assistance of temporary nature, the proposed instrument will 
help prevent lasting poverty and social exclusion of people who find themselves 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
in situations of severe deprivation. As well as helping enable the most deprived 
members  of  the  society  to  maintain  their  dignity  and  human  capital  it  will 
contribute to the strengthening of social capital and social cohesion within their 
communities. Ultimately the proposed instrument can, in conjunction with other 
types of support that can be co-financed notably from the ESF, also help improve 
the employability of the end-beneficiaries, enabling them to make a contribution 
to the economy. 

EU-level action in this respect is necessary given the level and nature of poverty 
and social exclusion in the Union, further aggravated by the economic crisis, and 
uncertainty about the ability of all Member States to sustain social expenditure 
and  investment  at  levels  sufficient  to  ensure  that  social  cohesion  does  not 
deteriorate  further  and  that  the  objectives  and  targets  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy are achieved.  At the same time, more and more social stakeholders and 
EU  citizens  perceive  the  EU  as  a  threat  for  their  personal  and  collective 
protection50.  

Distribution  of  the  resources  will  take  into  account  the  number  of  severely 
materially deprived people and the recent poverty trends in each Member State 
in  order  to  allocate  the  resources  where  they  are  most  needed  and  maximise 
effectiveness.  The Figure 4 below presents a summary of the problem definition. 

50 Policy Brief 5.4 EU Governance and Social Policy: larger and larger uncertainties looming. 
Available at:  http://www.gusto-project.eu  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure 4. Summary of the problem definition 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Objectives 

3.1.  General objective 

The  general  objective  of  the  European  Fund  for  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived 
(FEAD) is to contribute to the achievement of the poverty reduction target of the 
Europe 2020 strategy thereby increasing social cohesion in the European Union. 

3.2.  Specific objective 

The new instrument aims at providing existing systems and structures delivering 
assistance  to  deprived  people  with  additional  resources  and  at  providing  a 
platform  around  which  to  exchange  information  and  experiences  strengthening 
thereby mutual learning. The idea behind the new instrument is thereby the idea 
of  'leading  by  example',  i.e.  of  actually  doing  something  which  is  important  and 
sensible in a good and sometimes even exemplary way. 

This double intention is taken up by two distinct specific objectives:  

1.  To  contribute  to  alleviating  the  worst  forms  of  poverty  in  the  European 
Union by providing non-financial assistance to the most deprived persons;  
2.  To  help  to  coordinate  efforts,  to  develop  and  introduce  instruments  to 

promote social inclusion of the most deprived persons. 

When defining the objective it has to be taken into account that implementation 
of  the  scheme  will  be  done  on  the  national  level  following  national  operational 
programmes. These will be able to be more precise on their specific objectives as 
they will identify what the worst form of poverty are in a given Member State and 
concrete institutional weaknesses  of  the  existing instruments,  which  need  to be 
improved. 

3.3.  Operational objective 

Because  the  instrument  is  to  be  implemented  in  shared  management  the 
identification  of  operational  objectives  would  ideally  take  into  account  the  ex-
ante  evaluations  of  the  individual  operational  programmes.  These  are  yet  to  be 
conducted.    

At the European level the operational objectives, for which the monitoring system 
will need to provide consistent data on the European level are to: 

1.  Assist needy people with basic goods;  
2.  To have a multiplier effect of at least 2. The multiplier effect is estimated 
as the ratio of total resources mobilised to the EU resources provided.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.  Consistency with other EU policies and strategies 

A future fund is expected to make a positive contribution to key EU policy areas: 

•  Social inclusion – The Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs set a key 
target  of  "lifting  at  least  20  million  people  out  of  poverty  and  social 
exclusion  by  2020  ".    Preventing  the  transmission  of  poverty  across 
generations,  as  well  as,  addressing  its  most  extreme  forms  (such  as 
homelessness)  are  important  priorities  in  this  context  reflected  in  up-
coming  initiatives  such  as  the  field  of  child  poverty  or  in  various  EU 
policies with relevance of homelessness. (See also annex 1 on the ESF)    

in 

•  Fundamental  rights  –  as  stated 

the  Strategy  for 

the  effective 
implementation of the Charter of Fundamental rights by the European Union51, 
the EU must be exemplary as regards the protection of fundamental rights and 
ensure in all its actions that fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter are 
as effective as possible. In addition, the EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child 
emphasises  that  EU  action  must  target  children  in  situations  when    they  are 
most  vulnerable  and  refers  expressly  to  children  growing  up  in  poverty  and 
social exclusion in this regard52. 

•  Public  health  –  a  food  distribution  scheme  should  take  into  account 
relevant  aspects  of  the  Commission's  "Strategy  for  Europe  on  Nutrition, 
Overweight  and  Obesity  related  health  issues"  by  contributing  to 
improving the health of the EU's most deprived citizens. 

•  Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - the objectives of the CAP as defined 
in  Article  39(1)  of  the  Treaty  include  stabilising  markets,  assuring  the 
availability  of  supplies  and  ensuring  that  supplies  reach  consumer  at 
reasonable  prices.  A  social  support  programme  with  a  food  distribution 
component  would  contribute  to  guaranteeing  the  broad  availability  of 
food within the Union.  

•  Food  legislation  -  the  renewed  fund  could  usefully  take  advantage  of 
opportunities  created  by  EU  and  national  policies  to  reduce  food  losses 
and food waste at all stages of the food chain53 (see also Annex 11). 

The  FEAD  should  not  overlap  with  but  rather  complement  other  EU  financial 
instruments addressing social cohesion. This is the case for the ERDF and more 
particularly for the ESF which remains the main EU instrument for investments in 
the  areas  of  employment,  education  and  life-long  learning  and  social  inclusion. 
Only  actions  not  covered  by  the  ERDF  or  the  ESF  should  be  considered  for 
inclusion in the FEAD's scope. Infrastructure should not be eligible.  

51 COM (2010) 573 final 
52 COM(2011) 60 final 
53 for example by clarifying the relevant legislation on food date labelling (best before/use by dates) 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
4. Policy options 
All  options  (except  the  "no  funding"  one)  foresee  that  implementation  will  be 
under  shared  management  through  operational  programmes  similar  to  those 
under cohesion policy. These programmes are proposed by the Member States, 
decided on by the Commission and last for seven years. The Commission plays an 
information brokering role organising the exchange of information and learning 
is  done  by  Managing 
between  Member  States.  Actual 
Authorities.  Depending  on  the  programmes,  the  Managing  Authorities  either 
organise a central purchase of the material assistance goods to be distributed or 
leave this procurement to the beneficiaries themselves.  

implementation 

Operational  Programmes  are  important  elements  to  ensure  both  the  respect  of 
the principle of subsidiarity and the coherence with other programmes including 
the  ESF.  The  flexibility  Member  States  have  in  elaborating  their  operational 
programmes allows adapting to local needs and context and ensures respect for 
subsidiarity.  It  also  means  that  making  a  priori  estimates  for  EU  wide  levels  of 
support for given target groups, the specific characteristics of the target groups 
themselves, the numbers reached, the results expected, can at best only be based 
on important assumptions. (See also annex 2 for a more extensive discussion of 
implementation arrangements). 

The options considered do not differ in terms of the allocation of resources to the 
Member States. All assume the same amount of funding based on the number of 
severely  materially  deprived  (SMD)  people  averaged  over  three  years  and  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  persons  living  in  households  with  very  low  working 
intensity  over  the  same  period  of  time.  Both  indicators  are  component  of  the 
Europe  2020  strategy  indicator  for  the  number  of  persons  at  risk  of  poverty  or 
social  exclusion  and  are  available  from  Eurostat.  The  SMD  is  the  best  proxy 
available for the size of the target groups intended. The number of persons at risk 
of poverty or social exclusion is the indicator that first seems to reflect the impact 
of the on-going economic and financial crisis. The total amount available has been 
fixed in the MFF communication at €2.5 billion for a period of seven years, to be 
distributed across all Member States. The actual amounts per Member State will 
be the object of an Implementing Act by the Commission. 

For all options it is proposed to focus the FEAD on non-financial assistance to the 
citizens in need due to the following reasons: 

1. 

Focussing on in-kind aid works as a targeting mechanism. Because 
asking and accepting in-kind aid is often difficult, this should help 
ensure that only the most deprived people are reached. At the same 
time  it  helps  avoid  rigid  and  complex  criteria  which  might  not  be 
the  most  relevant  in  each  local  situation  and  the  application  of 
which would need to be subject to controls and verifications. 

2. 

Moreover,  providing  aid  in-kind  also  increases  the  opportunities 
for low threshold interactions with the recipients. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
An  additional  targeting  mechanism  is  to  define  selection  criteria  for  the 
organisations  distributing  the  assistance  to  the  final  recipients.  Only  those 
organisations  delivering  aid  packages  and  offering  a  number  of  ancillary  social 
inclusion services to their clients should be supported by the new instrument. 

The  options  considered  cover  two  different  dimensions,  the  scope  of  the 
instrument and the use of the intervention stocks.  

4.1.  The scope of the new instrument 

The main dimension concerns the scope of the actions of the new instrument.  

The first option is to limit it, as the current MDP, to Food Aid. The recipients are 
given food packages or free meals.  

Secondly, it is also possible to design the programme based on a wider concept 
of  Food  Assistance.  Stakeholder  organisations  often  draw  attention  to  the 
opportunities  the  provision  of  food  aid  offers  for  a  first  contact  to  be  made 
between  the  charities/NGOs  and  deprived  people  who  are  in  need,  not  only  of 
food, but help in many other ways.  Following a first contact, further assistance is 
often  arranged,  by  the  organisations  themselves  or  by  the  appropriate  social 
services  to  which  the  recipients  are  directed.  When  further  assistance  is 
delivered by the organisations themselves they usually rely on volunteers, often 
professionals dedicating part of their free time. Services offered may include, for 
instance, training in budgeting, cooking and nutrition. In this way, providing food 
aid  can  be  a  first  step  in  a  process  that  leads  to  the  social  and  economic 
reintegration  of  excluded  people.  Broadening  the  scope  of  the  instrument  and 
equipping these organisations with additional means to provide more integrated 
services can therefore help increase the leverage effect of the FEAD.  

Moreover,  MDP  stakeholders  and  particularly  the  Food  Banks  have  pointed  at 
the complementarity between food aid and some actions to reduce food waste. In 
particular, food banks or other organisations delivering food aid could establish 
partnerships with the food supply chain in order to recuperate and store in safe 
conditions edible food from retailers combined with social employment. 

Finally a much more ambitious rethink is possible. With a Broad Scope, food aid 
would not anymore be the only element but other forms of material assistance 
could be considered. These would be related to homelessness and child poverty, 
two  areas  which  play  a  key  role  for  social  inclusion,  show  a  clear  worsening 
trend  as  a  result  of  the  crisis  and  are  so  far  not  taken  up  by  other  community 
instruments,  such  as  the  ESF54.  Accompanying  measures  directly  related  to  the 
type  of  material  provided  would  further  strengthen  integrated  approaches  to 
poverty  alleviation  and  the  fight  against  social  exclusion  in  line  with  the 
European platform against poverty and social exclusion55. 

54 For an overview of the mapping undertaken see Annex 2.   
55 See: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=961.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
4.2. 

Intervention stocks 

Making  a  meaningful  use  of  agricultural  surpluses  was  at  the  core  of  the  MDP, 
when  the  EU  first  got  involved  in  providing  food  aid  to  deprived  people.  It  is 
therefore  important  to  assess  to  what  extent  this  tradition  could/should  be 
maintained. The basic issue here is when a national FEAD programme decides to 
distribute  food  aid,  whether  existing  interventions  stocks  (either  for  direct  use 
or to be processed into other products) should be used or not.  

The use of intervention stocks implies bearing risks. If the selling price recovers 
significantly  above  the  intervention  price  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  a 
profit  is  generated  which  can  be  used  to  increase  the  actual  volume  of  aid 
distributed.  In  case  the  market  price  would  not  recover  to  levels  above  the 
intervention price, the managing authorities could minimise their losses by using 
the  intervention  stock  for  the  food  aid  scheme.  In  this  case  safeguards  must  be 
built in to prevent further pressure on the markets, such as carrousels (return of 
the  withdrawn  intervention  products).  While  the  possibility  of  a  direct  transfer 
might  seem  tempting,  it  implies  a  reduction  of  budgetary  transparency  and  a 
certain risk for the programme (the profits might not materialise). 

Intervention stocks are not directly useable for human consumption. They must 
be at least packaged, for instance Skimmed Milk Powder from bulk to manageable 
units,  or  even  transformed,  for  instance  soft  wheat  to  flour.  The  use  of 
intervention  stocks  for  food  aid  would  oblige  managing  authorities  to  engage 
themselves  in  the  task  of  organising  such  transformation  processes  (e.g.  from 
grain to flour or pasta). Operators (i.e. the companies actually taking care of the 
transformation) are required to  transport and possibly process products before 
delivery  to  the  NGOs.  They  will  keep  a  percentage  of  the  food  products,  as 
payment  for  the  operation.  Compared  to  a  direct  purchase  on  the  open  market, 
the  exchange  of  intervention  stocks  for  finished  products  can  be  expected  to 
result  in  reduced  utility  (higher  transaction  costs  and  potential  suboptimal 
provision of goods).   

While it cannot be completely excluded that markets may sometime be depressed 
and  that  intervention stocks  built  up  again,  the  actual  forecast is that  there  will 
structurally  be  no  intervention  stocks  to  use  in  the  first  place.  The  current  CAP 
foresees  direct  market  interventions  for  soft  wheat,  other  cereals  and  rice, 
skimmed milk powder (SMP), butter and beef.  The new CAP foresees to further 
reduce the possibilities for such market interventions. The analysis presented in 
the  Prospects  for  agricultural  markets  and  income  2011-202056 concludes  that 
"EU commodity markets are expected to remain balanced - on average - over the 
outlook period (2011-2020), without the need for market intervention". The June 
2012 Short Term Outlook for arable crop, meat and dairy markets foresees that 
all intervention stocks will be run down to zero by the end of 201257.   

The use of intervention stocks is therefore discarded from further analysis of the 
options in this impact assessment on the technical grounds that: 

56 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/caprep/prospects2011/index_en.htm  
57 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/sto-crop-meat-dairy/2012-06_en.pdf 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
    
1.  Using 

intervention  stocks  reduces  budgetary 

transparency  and 
encourages  to  act  upon  expectations  about  the  future  development  of 
prices for these agricultural products in a programme aiming at providing 
support to the most deprived people within the EU.  

2.  A regulation which foresees the use of intervention stocks is necessarily 
much more complex, not least because it would need to set up different 
work flows, involve more institutions (e.g. in the storage and processing 
of  agricultural  intervention  stocks  into  food)  making  its  implementation 
more difficult and burdensome.  

3.  The  forecasts  are  that  the  opportunity  will  not  arise  anyway  as 
intervention  stocks  are  expected  to  be  non-existent  or  at  least  highly 
unpredictable.  

Nevertheless, it may be justified to foresee an optional use of intervention stocks 
(to the extent they are available after 2013), Intervention stocks are typically not 
quickly perishable and they can be often re-sold after a certain time. However, to 
the  extent  they  would  be  at  the  risk  of  perishing,  it  could  be  indeed  questioned 
why  stocks  of  food  built  up  (even  if  on  an  irregular  basis)  with  European  tax 
payers'  money  cannot  be  used  in  support  of  the  most  deprived  persons  in  our 
society.  

4.3.  Options 
Beyond  the  three  options  which  follow  directly  from  the  considerations  about 
the  scope  of  the  instruments  (options  1  to  3),  a  fourth  option  (option  0  –  no 
funding) has been included into the analysis. The motivation to do so and in that 
to  deviate  from  the  decisions  already  taken  at  the 
level  of  the  MFF 
Communication is that option 0 although not preferred by the Commission forms 
part of the ongoing public debate.  

Option 0 - No funding 

Under  the  no-funding  option,  the  Union  completely  withdraws  as  of  2014  from 
material  support  to  the  most  deprived.  The  years  2012  and  2013  constitute  in 
effect  a  phasing  out  of  the  MDP.  As  surpluses  from  intervention  stocks  have 
become less available for distribution and, due to their present role as safety net, 
they are not likely to reach their previous high levels in the coming years, it could 
be  considered  that  the  programme  has  lost  its  original  rationale.  It  could 
therefore be abolished.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Option 1 – Food Aid 

Under  this  option  entrusted  authorities  manage  a  food  aid  scheme.  Managing 
authorities  will  have  to  decide  whether  (1)  they  provide  food  stuffs  to  their 
beneficiaries, which was the practice of the MDP in the past and which requires a 
rather detailed planning and coordination system, or (2) would provide funds for 
the  purchase  of  food  stuffs  or  (3)  whether  they  choose  a  mixed  system,  i.e. 
providing food stuffs and money. 

Option 2 – Food Assistance  

The  major  change  compared  to  the  previous  option  is  that  accompanying 
measures  are  supported  explicitly.  Services  offered  may  include,  for  instance, 
training in budgeting, cooking and nutrition. The beneficiaries58 may spend up to 
a  certain  share  on  supporting  actions  (e.g.  collecting  and  storing  food  from 
retailers  to  avoid  it  being  wasted)  and  their  social  inclusion  activities.  This 
amount is set as a fixed proportion of the value of the food aid distributed.  

MDP  stakeholders  and  particularly  the  Food  Banks  have  pointed  at  the 
complementarity between food aid and some actions to reduce food wastage. In 
particular, food banks or other organisations delivering food aid could establish 
partnerships with the food supply chain in order to recuperate and store in safe 
conditions edible food from retailers combined with social employment. 

Option 3 – Broad scope  

Under  this option,  the Member  State  is free to  choose  whether to  use  the  funds 
allocated  to  it  to  provide  food  assistance,  or,  alternatively,  to  use  all  or  part  of 
them  to  organise  other  type  of  non-financial  support  to  people  experiencing 
severe  material  deprivation.  These  would  be  related  to  homelessness  and  child 
poverty,  two  areas  which  play  a  key  role  for  social  inclusion,  show  a  clear 
worsening trend as a result of the crisis and are so far not sufficiently addressed 
by other community instruments, such as the ESF59. Support may cover materials 
necessary  for  settling  in  permanent  housing60,  and  children  clothing.  Table  2 
below provides an overview of the different options and their relationships.  

Table 2. Summary of the scope options 

Option 

Implementation 
arrangements 

The Union completely 

Types of non-
financial assistance 
possible 

Accompanying 
measures 

Option 0 – no 
funding 

withdraws as of 2014 from 

material support to the most 

N/A 

deprived. 

Option 1 – 
Food Aid  

Operational  programmes  decide 

Food packages 

whether managing authorities:  

 Meals 

N/A 

N/A 

58 In analogy with ESF terminology the word 'beneficiary' signifies the institution which supports the people 
in  need  (e.g.  Red  Cross,  Eurodiaconia  etc.).  The  person  in  need  who  receives  support  is  called  'final 
beneficiary' or 'end beneficiary'. 
59 For an overview of the mapping undertaken see Annex 2.   
60 For instance the starter packs given to homeless people under "housing first" programmes. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
(baseline) 

• 

• 

provide    food  stuffs  to  the 

beneficiaries; or  

give 

funds 

to 

the 

beneficiaries to purchase the 

goods; or  

• 

implement a mixed system.. 

Option 2 – 
Food 
Assistance 

Same as for option 1 

Same as for option 1 

• 

• 

• 
• 

training 

in 

budgeting, 

cooking and nutrition; 

personal 

development 

training 

including 

nurturing  confidence,  and 

setting goals; 

community gardens; 

partnerships  with  the  food 

supply  chain  eventually 

combined  with 

social 

employment 

Option 3 – 
Broad scope 

Operational  programmes  will 

have to decide on: 
(1)  which 

type  of  material 

assistance to provide; 

(2)  how 

the 

managing 

authorities will provide it: 

o 

give the  goods to 

the  beneficiaries; 

or  

o 

give  funds  to  the 

beneficiaries 

to 

purchase 

goods; or 

the 

o 

a mixed system.  

(1)  Food Aid (same as for 

option 1) 

(2)  Goods for homeless 
persons moving into 

Same as for option 2 plus: 
• 

personal 

development 

training 

including 

permanent housing ; 

nurturing  confidence,  and 

material and 

setting goals; 

equipment for shelters 

(3)  Goods for children 

(clothes, shoes,..) 

• 
• 

extra-curricular activities 

parenting counselling 

5. Analysis of impacts 

Taking into account the nature of the options, the analysis of impacts will focus 
on a qualitative analysis of socio-economic impacts. It needs to be borne in mind, 
however,  that  actual  impacts  will  also  depend  on  the  concrete  implementation, 
i.e.  on  the  programmes  designed  in  each  of  the  Member  States  and  the  actual 
actions  and  organisations  supported  and  not  directly  on  the  legal  provisions  at 
EU level. 

Environmental  impacts  are  discussed  in  a  more  comprehensive  way  in  a 
subsequent section as they are relatively small. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.  Scope options 

Option 0: No funding 

Economic Impacts 

With  the  no  funding  option,  the  foreseen  budget  of  2.5  billion  Euro  for  2014  – 
2020  would  be  made  available  for  other  purposes.  Assumptions  about  the 
alternative  use  of  the  funds  are  decisive  to  assess  social  as  well  as  economic 
impacts. According to the Commission's proposal, funding to the programme is to 
be  allocated  from  national  cohesion  policy  envelopes.  If  the  budget  was  instead 
allocated to the ESF it could result in additional positive impact for those groups 
typically covered by ESF assistance. However, it would reduce them for those not 
covered. In terms of social inclusion an important element of assistance would be 
missed. 

Social Impacts 

Given the context of tight budgets and the drive in most of the EU to reduce public 
expenditure  national  administrations  are  unlikely  to  completely  take  over  the 
tasks the MDP has performed so far.  

In case of no replacement by national or regional schemes, the millions of persons 
who are annually supported directly by the programme would not have access to 
food aid. Furthermore as this programme is an important and reliable resource to 
numerous  beneficiaries,  there  might  also  be  indirect  effects  with  even  bigger 
negative  consequences.  To  organisations  largely  depending  on  volunteers,  the 
existing scheme offers a useful stability on the basis of which they have been able 
to develop activities and services which go beyond what is financed by the food 
aid  scheme  (e.g.  collection  of  food  from  retailers,  advice),  thus  increasing  the 
effects of assistance.  

Experience shows  that  when  a  pillar  of  assistance  is taken  away,  a system  does 
not  collapse  immediately,  but  it  becomes  more  difficult  for  the  organisations  to 
maintain a critical level of activity and to the motivation necessary in the medium 
to long run. Thus some organisations' activities are likely to successively fade out. 

This option would lead to the deterioration of the situation of the most deprived people 
who currently benefit from the existing food aid and therefore it would have a negative 
impact  on  the  respect  of  fundamental  rights,  in  particular  the  respect  for  human 
dignity  and  for  private  and  family  life,  the  rights  of  the  child,  the  rights  of  the 
elderly, equality between men and women and the principle of social security and 
social protection.  

Moreover, the no-funding option would attest an erosion of solidarity in Europe 
with its most deprived citizens at a time the problem of poverty is increasing. 

All  stakeholders  and  Member  States  in  fact  appear  to  agree  on  the  latter 
assessment.  The  main  argument  for  the  Member  States  so  far  opposed  to  the 
continuation of the MDP programme has been that food aid intervention from the 
EU's  side  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  At  the  same  time, 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
these Member States have not refuted the concern that for a number of Member 
States  it  would  be  impossible  or  exceedingly  difficult  to  replace  the  existing 
scheme with their own means. 

Option 1 (Baseline): Food aid only 

Economic Impacts 

Managing authorities will  have  to  decide  whether  they  exclusively  provide food 
stuffs  to  their  beneficiaries,  which  was  the  practice  of  the  MDP  in  the  past  and 
which  requires  a  rather  detailed  planning  and  coordination  system,  would 
provide  funds  for  the  purchase  of  food  stuffs  or  whether  they  would  go  for  a 
mixed system, i.e. providing food stuffs and money.  

Although  direct  monetary  support  is  in  general  welcomed  by  the  stakeholder 
organisations,  and  also  potential  managing  authorities  generally  agree  on  a 
preference for monetary support, there is a broad agreement that a mixed system 
is to be avoided. Therefore it can be expected that under this option a system of 
exclusively  material  support  is  most  suitable  as  this  would  avoid  having  to 
provide a double accounting system. Under this system, the selected beneficiaries 
would communicate their needs to the managing authority who would purchase 
the goods and organise their distribution.  

Having such a programme might tempt agro-industries to become more reluctant 
about donating stocks, as they might expect that the programme might also pay 
for  them.  In  effect,  the  programme  could  be  paying  for  something  that  in  its 
absence  would  be  free.  Nevertheless,  given  the  size  of  the  programme  as 
compared to agricultural output as a whole, the wasted food, the hassle of fixing a 
price  for  goods,  which  are  –  although  still  ok  –  non-saleable  to  the  usual 
conditions,  and  also  the  aspect  those  companies  also  benefit  from  a  good 
reputation  as  a  donor,  it  seems  very  unlikely  that  this  would  be  a  major  issue. 
Moreover,  corporate  donations  tend  to  be  perishable  products  in  excess  stocks 
while  the  FEAD  could  be  expected  to  be  as  the  current  MDP  mainly  a  source  of 
non-perishable or long conservation products. It has also not been an issue in the 
current MDP. 

Social Impacts 

On  the  basis  of  the  experience  with  the  existing  support  programme  one  can 
forecast that this programme would allow food banks and similar organisations 
to help annually around 2.1 million people61. This corresponds to approximately 
5% of the severely materially deprived population. However the real coverage is 
likely  to  be  at  least  twice  as  big.  This  estimate  does  not  take  into  account  the 
mobilisation  of  additional  resources  from  national  and  private  sources.  These 
often  more  than  doubles  the  total  resources  available.  Moreover,  the  SMDP  can 

61 This  estimate  is  based  on  the  definition  used  by  the  French  Food  Bank:  a  recipient  is  a  person  having 
benefitted from support at least once in a given month. It is not possible to compare this figure with MDP 
participants data as there is no agreed methodology to report on them.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
only be seen as a very rough proxy for the target population which is used only in 
the  absence  of  any  better  one.  Only  a  fraction  will  really  qualify  for  assistance 
under any of the options considered programme.   

Nevertheless the argument of the Member States against the scheme, that this is 
basically an instrument of passive support to people and in so far in conflict with 
the  subsidiarity  principle  would  be  difficult  to  de-substantiate  in  particular  as 
also the even beneficiary organisations confirm that a more activating approach 
is possible and desirable. 

This option would allow the continuation of an important and reliable resource to 
numerous  beneficiaries.  Organisations  largely  depending  on  volunteers  would 
continue  to  benefit  from  the  stability  of  the  existing  scheme and the impact on 
fundamental  rights  of  this  option  would  be  positive,  however  more  limited  than  in 
the subsequent options. 

Option 2: Food assistance  

Economic impacts 

Using limited resources for accompanying measures such as a social worker who 
gives guidance to volunteers or money to buy a van with which the collection of 
spare  food  from  retailers  and  producers  would  be  facilitated  will  necessarily 
entail  that  beneficiaries  should  obtain  monetary  support.  Allowing  part  of  the 
money  to  be  spent  on  accompanying  measures  means  that  less  money  can  be 
spent on the purchase of food.  

When  allocating  money  to  the  NGOs  instead  of  material  goods,  the  volume  of 
orders might decrease as compared to a central body doing so; however, prices 
will  still  be  on  the  level  of  wholesale  prices  and  be  far  below  retail  prices.  The 
advantage  of 
that  coordination  becomes  more 
straightforward then in highly centralised systems and that in a somewhat more 
decentralised system also SME are more likely to become suppliers. 

this  approach  being 

Social impacts 

There  is  no  difference  between  option  2  and  option  1  (baseline)  in  terms  of 
targeting.  The  profile  of  the  population  served  remains  the  same.  The  major 
difference  is  the  support  for  an  integrated  Food  Assistance  approach  to  the 
beneficiaries.  

Taking into account the somewhat smaller volume of goods directly purchased as 
compared  to  option  the  number  of  final  beneficiaries  served  will  necessarily  be 
reduced.  The  coverage  of  the  target  population  is  therefore  also  expected  to  be 
somewhat smaller though these reductions are likely to be small in comparison 
with  the  large  uncertainties  attached  to  these  estimated  (see  the  simulations  in 
annex 10).   

Directly  linked  to  the  possibility  of  financing  accompanying  measures  are  two 
types  of  social  benefits:  NGO's  will  be  able  to  finance  the  logistics  necessary  to 
collect and store food-donations, and they will be able to improve the activating 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
elements of their support. Therefore it is expected that option 2 has a higher and 
more sustainable positive impact on the final beneficiaries then this would be the 
case  for  the  option  1  –  the  baseline.  In  addition,  the  positive  impact  on 
fundamental rights would also be higher than in option 1.   

Thus  the  programme  is  expected  to  become  more  efficient  as  a  stepping  stone 
from social marginalisation to a situation where instruments such as the ESF can 
actually  step  in.  It  should  lead  in  the  long  term  to  an  increased  chance  of 
reintegration  for  certain  groups  into  the  labour  market,  thus  increasing  labour 
supply.  Some  of  the  actions  supported  might  also  lead  to  self-employment  or 
social employment. However, these effects are expected to be non-measurable. 

The  risk  that  national  social  security  or  protection  systems  may  reduce  their 
allocations to "compensate" for benefits received through this scheme is existent, 
although  this  risk  can  be  considered  as  relatively  small  as  poverty  is  not  yet 
phasing out – on the contrary. 

Option 3: Broad scope instrument 

Economic impacts 

Option 3 means that it becomes more difficult to predict what will be supported 
in the national or regional context. Managing authorities gain a greater autonomy 
and flexibility to decide whether they allow NGOs to support a broader range of 
actions  (e.g.  providing  homeless  with  food  but  also  help  them  moderate 
homelessness62) or whether they limit the possible activities to one type of action 
only.  

Similar to option 2 this option foresees the provision of accompanying measures 
– irrespective of which set of action the Member State finally decides to support. 
This should allow for a similar level of multiplier as option 2. 

Crowding out governmental support, although it cannot be completely excluded, 
becomes even less rational, as in Member States where one of the proposed areas 
of interventions is already relatively well covered by governmental intervention, 
there would still be considerable gaps in other areas. 

Social impacts 

With this option the Union provides the Member States with the possibility to go 
beyond  food  aid,  and  notably  help  the  homelessness  and  severe  materially 
deprived children.  

This should provide for a flexible instrument which can be tailored to the needs 
of  the  most  deprived  people  in  each  Member  State.  As  shown  in  annex  10    the 
composition  of  final  beneficiaries  is  thereby  likely  to  change,  as  at  least  some 
Member  States  will  go  beyond  exclusively  providing  food  aid,  though  it  is 
impossible  to  estimate  a  priori  to  which  extent  with  any  certitude.  The 

62 Such help could consist in starter kits for getting settled, but could also consist in blankets or 
sleeping bags to avoid freezing in the winter. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
assumption here is that the Member States currently using the MDP will continue 
to distribute food aid whereas the Member States not using it will concentrate on 
one  of  the  new  areas  of  activity.  In  this  context  a  repartition  key  of  80/10/10 
seemed  reasonable.  Taking  into  account  the  estimated  costs63,  the  number  of 
people supported per year can be estimated to be at around 2.13 million, i.e. quite 
similar  to  the  situation  under  option  1  (see  the  simulations  in  annex  10)  not 
accounting for the multiplier effect.  The coverage of the target group is therefore 
also expected to be of the same order, though the actual composition would likely 
change (more homeless people and more children). 

The  greater  flexibility  made  possible  by  the  broader  scope  should  ensure  a 
stronger overall impact than option 2, even if the concretely attributable impact 
on food poverty will be smaller. This does not entail that the actual programmes 
in  the  Member  States  themselves  would  be  less  focussed.  A  focussed  approach 
that  can  effectively  target  the  limited  funds  to  specific  targeted  actions  can  be 
maintained while envisaging more flexibility at national level to design the most 
appropriate interventions in favour of the most deprived. 

Even more so than option 2, this option could become a stepping stone for some 
final  beneficiaries  to  get  back 
into  society.  Some  of  the  beneficiaries' 
organisations  notably  the  food  banks  and  the  Restos  du  Coeur,  however 
expressed  their  worry  that  this  would  further  reduce  the  volumes  of  food  aid 
distributed.  Other  organisations  less  focussed  on  the  distribution  of  food  aid  as 
such felt a broad scope to be more in line with their activities. At the same time 
broadening  the  scope  is  seen  as  one  way  to  make  the  instrument  more  flexible 
and therefore potentially more acceptable to all Member States.  

Given  the  additional  focus  on  homeless  and  children  in  material  deprivation,  the 
positive  impact  on  fundamental  rights  of  this  option  is  the  strongest  one.  In 
particular, it enhances the promotion of the rights of the child and of the right to social 
and  housing  assistance  as  stipulated  in  Articles  24  and  34  (3)  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

5.2.  Environmental impact 

The environmental impacts of the FEAD are essentially linked to distribution of 
the goods and the reduction of waste.  

A  joint  study64 conducted  by  SITA  and  the  French  Federation  of  Food  Banks 
examined  the  carbon  balance  of  the  food  bank  of  the  Bas  Rhin  (France).  The 
operation of this food bank is estimated to result in a saving of 1,770 tons carbon 
per year while the amount of food products collected and distributed amounted 
in  2009  at  1,707  tons65.  These  saving  results  from  the  collection  of  food  stuffs 
otherwise  treated  as  waste.    Fareshare,  a  British  charity  estimated  that  its 
activities  helped  businesses  reduce  CO2  emissions  by  1,800  tonnes  in  2010/11 
while  the  amount  of  food  collected  and  distributed  amounted  to  3,600  tons66.  

63 Provided by the stakeholders consulted. 
64 http://www.banquealimentaire.org/partenaires/sita-001239  
65 http://www.bancalim67.org  
66 http://www.fareshare.org.uk 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
These figures point to an effect in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 tons CO2 reduction per 
ton of food. 

Overall  it  seems  possible  to  conclude  that  food  aid  will  have  a  positive 
environmental impact compared to no food aid, as it allows maintaining the food 
recovery  structures  created  so  far.  Pursuant  to  the  analysis  of  social  and 
economic impacts it is expected that under the food-assistance option, recovery 
might become even more systematic, as the accompanying measures might allow 
the  charities  to  actually  invest  in  a  somewhat  more  systematic  recovery  and 
storage.  

The  options  1  to  3  correspond  to  decreasing  volumes  of  food  aid  delivered  and 
therefore  to  decreasing  levels  of  carbon  saving  (from  573  thousand  to  400 
thousand tons not taking into account the multiplier effect). These carbon savings 
must be placed in relation to the overall food production and distribution in the 
Union. While limited, the carbon savings through food aid are not negligible. The 
environmental  impact  of  option  0  depends  essentially  on  how  the  funds 
becoming  available  are  reallocated.  Assuming  that  they  are  used  for  the  ESF, 
there would be no direct volume or waste reduction effect. 

The table below summarises the discussions.  

Table 3. Expected environmental impacts. 

Volume 
effect 

Waste 
reduction 
effect 

Overall assessment of 
environmental 
impact 

Option 0 – No funding 

Option  1  –  Food  aid  only 
(baseline) 

Option 2 – Food assistance  

Option 3 – Broad scope  

-- 

0 

- 

-- 

-- 

0 

+ 

+ 

-- 

0 

0 

- 

Legend:  baseline =; - worse than baseline; + better than baseline; -- worse than -; ++ better than + 

In fact the ultimate environmental effect is very uncertain for any of the options. 
If Member States and beneficiaries decide to maximise recycling even the options 
2  and  3  could  have  a  positive  volume  effect.  Actions  against  food  waste  eligible 
under  the  instrument  in  the  options  2  and  3  may  increase  the  waste  reduction 
effect.  

6. Comparison of options 

The analyses made of the different options are compared in below. Thereby the 
operational  objective  to  assist  needy  people  links  to  the  two  direct  impacts: 
number  of  people  supported  and  whether  the  most  urgent  needs  are  actually 
addressed.  The  operational  objective  of  a  multiplier  between  2  to  4  has  been 
translated  into  the  question  whether  the  options  manage  to  mobilise  the 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
resources  and  whether  overall  administrative  requirements  are  reasonable.  – 
Thereby the link between these two impacts and the specific objective to organise 
support in a way that volunteers are encouraged to contribute and to maximise 
the multiplier effect is obvious.  

The effect on social inclusion and on employment and labour market refer very 
much  to  the  general  objective.  It  was  considered  as  too  ambitious  to  claim  a 
strong direct or even measurable link between the instrument and these impacts. 

Table 4. Expected impacts. 

Number 
people 
supported 

Option  0 
funding 

–  No 

Option  1  –
Food 
aid 
only 
(baseline) 

Option  2  – Food 
assistance 

Option 3 – Broad 
scope  

of 

- 

0 

- 

0 

No programme – no 
people supported 

Direct effect 
estimated at 
2.1 million 
per year 

Direct effect 
estimated at 2.13 
million per year 

Direct effect 
estimated at 1.96 
million per year. 
Slightly less than 
the baseline as 
some of the 
resources 
available are 
spent on 
accompanying 
measures 

Reaching 
the 
most  deprived 
the 
(having 
highest  added 
value) 

Effect  on  social 
inclusion 

- 

- 

0 

0 

+ 

The greater 
flexibility offered 
should allow a 
targeting better 
matched to the 
needs in each MS/ 
region 

0 

+ 

++ 

Same 
target 
group,  but  more 
effective offer 

The better 
targeting on the 
most urgent needs 
should increase 
the social 
inclusion effects 

One  problem 
of 
serious 
deprivation 
(lack  of  food) 
is  addressed, 
no  guarantee 
that this is the 
most  urgent 
need 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Employment 
and 
market 

labour 

Overall 
impact 

social 

Option  0 
funding 

–  No 

Option  1  –
Food 
aid 
only 
(baseline) 

Option  2  – Food 
assistance 

Option 3 – Broad 
scope  

?? 

0 

+ 

+ 

Combining food-
aid with other 
activation 
measures 
following a chain 
of support might 
lead more 
efficiently to 
employment 

As compared to 
option 2 some of 
the participants 
may be even 
further removed 
from the labour 
market (f.i. 
children). 
However, this 
could be offset by 
the greater 
flexibility to 
address local 
situations. 

0 

+ 

++ 

The employment and 
labour market effect 
of option 0 depends 
on the use of the 
money. In case the 
money foreseen for 
this scheme would go 
to the ESF there 
would possibly be a 
neutral or positive 
employment and 
labour market 
impact 

? depends on how 
the resources 
would be allocated 
to other 
programmes but 
probably overall 
negative in 
comparison with 
the baseline 

Mobilisation  of 
resources 

 - 

0 

+ 

++ 

Administrative 
complexity  and 
transparency 

With the 
discontinuation of 
the programme 
voluntary 
contributions would 
become more 
difficult 

+ 

0 

- 

-- 

No programme – no 
administration (not 
taking into account 
that without the 
programme these 
people still might 
need support which 
will be more difficult 
to organise 

As option 2 
corresponds to a 
broader scope 
they represent 
increasing levels 
of complexity for 
management. 
Potential overlaps 
with other 
schemes notably 
the ESF also 
increase 

Same 
consideration as 
for option 2 but 
with possibly 
greater 
complexity as the 
scope of actions is 
even broader, at 
least if a 
programme 
chooses to work 
on more than one 
domain only. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option  0 
funding 

–  No 

Option  1  –
Food 
aid 
only 
(baseline) 

Option  2  – Food 
assistance 

Option 3 – Broad 
scope  

Overall 
economic 
impact 

?  

Very much 
depending on the 
question how these 
people will be 
supported otherwise.

Environmental 
impacts 

- 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

Legend:  baseline 0; - worse than baseline; + better than baseline; -- worse than -; ++ better than + 

However,  the  social  impact  of  the  FEAD  can  be  expected  to  go  beyond  the 
considerations made above.  

1.  By  providing  a  platform  around  which  practitioners  will  be  able  to 
exchange information and experiences it will bring significant benefits 
for many stakeholders in terms of processes (how things are done). As 
process effects are related by definition to how actions are delivered, 
it  can  be  expected  to  continue  to  do  so  even  if  it  is  difficult  to 
anticipate what effects will be generated in the future.  

2.  The evidence-based and mid- to long-term oriented implementation of 
the FEAD by means of operational programmes will also encourage a 
dialogue between various stakeholder groups and support a strategic 
approach  in  the  future.  Improvements  of  the  delivery  mechanisms 
(notably  simplification  and  reductions  of  the  administrative  burden) 
should  ensure  the  continued  relevance  of  process  effects.  The  FEAD 
will  be  an  instrument  to  facilitate  a  practical  dialogue  between 
European priorities and social cohesion policies. 

from  Structural  Funds  to  programmes 

None of the options has any significant impact on the administrative burden for 
the Commission services. This is because any of the options would only reallocate 
funds 
following  a  very  similar 
implementation  mechanism.  At  Member  State  level  the  administrative  needs  of 
the  programme  are  estimated  at  two  full-time  officials  per  Member  State, 
excluding  controls  but  for  the  reason  stated  above,  will  only  consist  in  a 
reorientation of administrative resources that would otherwise be mobilised for 
the ESF.  

In light of the above Option 3 is the preferred option on the grounds that it will 
allow the Member States to better target their interventions to local needs. Also 
the accompanying measures should ensure a greater sustainability of the results 
obtained.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Monitoring and evaluation 

As  described  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  document  the  programme  will  be 
implemented under shared management. Provided the diversity within the Union 
it  can  be  expected  that  the  exact  targeting  and  the  link  with  existing  social 
support  instruments  will  vary  strongly  between  and  sometimes  even  within 
Member States. 

Furthermore  it  needs  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  institutions  actually  receiving 
the  support  rely  to  a  large  extent  on  volunteer  work  and  donations.  Therefore 
putting  heavy  reporting  obligations  on  such  organisations  should  be  avoided  as 
much  as  possible.  Still  it  can  be  expected  that  these  organisations  will  not  only 
need to inform the Commission about their work but also other donors and the 
volunteers so to keep up their motivation.  

In  that  sense  each  charity  benefitting  from  the  support  should  be  motivated  to 
provide  transparency  about  the  support  received  and  the  support  given  on  an 
annual basis.  

While identifying a limited number of major lines of activity it should be possible 
to  report  for  each  of  these  lines  by  a  few  indicators.  The  indicators  in  Table  5 
were  tested  with  European  level  umbrella  organisations  and  deemed  adequate 
and realistic.  

Table 5. List of indicators proposed for reporting 

Output 

•  Number of food packages 

distributed  
•  Number of meals 

prepared/distributed 
•  Number of final recipients 
(food packages; meals) 

•  Number of starter kits 
•  Number of persons served 

Action domain 

Food Aid 

Homelessness 

Input 
Resources (in value) 
mobilised 
• 
In kind 
contributions: 

o  goods (from 
EU, from 
other 
sources)  

•  Financial 

o  From EU 
o  From other 
sources 

Resources (in value) 
mobilised 
• 
In kind 
contributions: 

o  goods (from 
EU, from 
other 
sources)  

•  Financial 

o  From EU 
o  From other 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Action domain 

Input 

Output 

sources 

Resources (in value) 
mobilised 
• 
In kind 
contributions: 

o  goods (from 
EU, from 
other 
sources)  

•  Financial 

o  From EU 
o  From other 
sources 

Child poverty 

Accompanying 
measures 

•  Number of aid packages given 
•  Number of children reached 

•  Number of persons served 
•  Number of families served 

(only for child poverty related 
actions) 

Such a basic annual reporting will be accompanied by structured surveys at least 
twice during the implementation period. These surveys will aim at: 

1. providing some insights on the structure of the clients, i.e. whether there 
is a dominance of a certain age group or minorities etc.  It is expected that 
this information will only be provided on the basis of informed guesses, 
as in several cases anonymity might be a precondition for a client to be 
able to accept the support.  

2. Assessing  the  importance  of  the  in-kind  contributions  other  than  goods, 

for instance voluntary labour and services provided free of costs; 

3. Collecting  data  on  the  immediate  impacts  of  the  aid  provided  on  the 

persons reached.  

These  surveys  will  form  the  basis  for  the  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency and impact of the operational programmes.  

The  output  indicators  are  directly  related  to  the  operational  objective  1.  The 
"input"  indicators  with  the  results  of  the  surveys  will  allow  elaborating  a  table 
such as table 1 and calculate the multiplier effect (Operational objective 2).  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1. The European Social Fund 

The  ESF  is  established  by  Article  162  of  the  Treaty  which  also  defines  its 
objective which is to "improve employment opportunities for workers".  

With a budget of 76 billion € for the programming period 2007-2013, the ESF is 
the  major  EU  instrument  to  invest  into  human  capital  and  social  inclusion, 
reaching over ten million persons per year. The ESF is part of cohesion policy (as 
are the European Regional Development Fund – ERDF - and the Cohesion Fund - 
CF) as such it is primarily governed by a fund specific regulation67 and a general 
regulation common with the ERDF and the CF68 both expiring at the end of 2013. 
It is a structural fund which aims at improving structures and systems. It will not 
finance  measures  providing  out-of-work  income  maintenance  and  support  (so-
called passive measures as opposed to active measures which aim at activating 
people and improving their integration into the labour force).  

implementation  occurs 

It is implemented under shared management with a strong focus on subsidiarity. 
The 
through  national  or  regional  operational 
programmes  (currently  117)  embedded  in  a  wide  diversity  of  social  structures 
and situations and covering a broad range of policy issues such as employment, 
education  and 
institutional  and 
administrative  capacity  building.  It  is  the  Managing  Authorities  who  effectively 
implement the programmes starting with the selection of the projects.   

learning,  social 

inclusion  and 

life-long 

Despite their  social  character,  food  aid  or any  aid in  kind  to  the  most  deprived 
persons  cannot  be  directly  linked  to  the  ESF  Treaty  objective.    They  can 
therefore not be funded under the ESF.  

The  very  activation  rationale  of  the  European  Social  Fund  implies  in  addition 
that the most deprived persons are all too often too far from the labour market 
and too excluded to benefit from its interventions. 

67 Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 
on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999. 
68 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the 
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. 

i 

 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

What it does 

The  EU’s  “Food  Distribution  programme  for  the  Most  Deprived  Persons  of  the 
Community”  (MDP)  has  been  in  place  since  December  1987,  when  the  Council 
adopted the rules for releasing public intervention stocks of agricultural products 
to Member States wishing to use them as food aid for the most deprived persons 
of the Community.  

The MDP does not set out to resolve all food poverty in the Member States. It is a 
complementary action which, in general, provides support to organisations which 
receive  little  or  no  state  funding.  The  role  of  these  charities  is  to  offer  help  to 
people  who  in  many  cases  have  fallen  outside  the  system,  i.e.  the  most 
marginalised members of society. Yet over the years, the scheme has become an 
important  source  of  provisions for  organisations  working  in  direct contact  with 
the least fortunate people of our society. For example, over half of the products 
distributed annually by the European Food Banks come from the programme. 

Each  year,  more  than  500  000  tons  of  products  are  distributed  under  this 
programme  to  over  18  million  people  in  20  participating  Member  States. 
Calculating a pure average this means around 28 kg/person. 

It should also be noted that the programme’s value goes beyond contributing to 
the right to food; it also has a leverage effect on the development of social actions 
by private bodies (charities) and public authorities (Member State and local).  

According to data provided by the European food banks69, which are among the 
beneficiary  organisations  of  the  programme,  supply  management  and  food 
distribution  are  daily  handled  by  more  than  7,800  volunteers  and  1,000 
employees. When organizing public food collections, they can gather hundreds of 
volunteers, thus creating a chain of social solidarity.  

Also  Caritas70 pointed  out  that,  besides  the  direct  contribution  tackling  food 
poverty,  the  programme  has  social  impacts,  linked  to  the  involvement  of 
volunteers, who help developing public spirit and citizenship. It also contributes 
to  more  social  cohesion  /inclusion  and  avoids  social  instability,  representing  a 
point  of  contact  with  deprived  individuals  and  families  and  operating  as  a 
potential entry point to other critical services. 

For  many  countries  and  organizations  the  MDP  is  the  main  source  of  support 
(Poland - 90%, Hungary – 84%, Italy – 68%, FEBA – 55%). 

69 Source FEBA 
70 Presentation of Caritas –Europe at the 2012 annual stakeholders meeting of the MDP 
programme, held in Brussels on 5 July 2012. 

ii 

 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

The legal basis 

The legal bases of the MDP are the articles 42 and 43(2) of the TFEU. The General 
Court ruled on 13 April 2011 on a complaint brought by Germany and supported 
by  Sweden,  against  the  allocations  granted  to  Member  States  under  the  2009 
MDP  for  purchases  of  food  on  the  market..  The  ruling,  against  the  Commission, 
basically  states  that  in  order  to  comply  with  Article  27  of  the  Single  CMO 
Regulation  applicable  at  the  time,  with  the  exception  of  specific  market 
circumstances that do not prevail today, food supplies under the scheme should 
essentially  come  from  public  storage  only.  Following  the  judgment  and  the 
ensuing  political  discussion,  an  amendment  of  Article  27  the  Single  CMO 
Regulation  was  adopted71.  This  amendment,  based  on  Articles  42  and  43(2) 
TFEU,  provides  a  separate  new  basis  for  the  purchases  of  food  products  on  the 
market  until  the  phase-out  of  the  MDP  scheme  at  the  completion  of  the  2013 
annual plan.  

How the programme works in practice 

Each year, Member States wishing to participate communicate their needs to the 
Commission.  Based  on  these  requests  and  Eurostat  data  on  poverty,  the 
Commission  defines  a  budget  ceiling  for  each  participating  Member  State  and  a 
list of products to be withdrawn from public stocks or purchased on the market, 
using the budget allocated. 

When intervention stocks are supplied, tenders are launched for the conversion, 
or  exchange,  of  these  commodities  (e.g.  wheat)  into  processed  products.  These 
products  are  distributed  as  food  aid  to  the  most  deprived,  either  in  the  form  of 
food baskets or as meals in centres run by charities and other competent bodies, 
designated by the Member States.  

The  Member  States  dispose  of  significant  freedom  in  the  selection  of  food 
products  to  distribute  to  the  most  deprived  people  and  the  exact  distribution 
patterns vary from country to country.  

Although  the  programme's  organisation  at  Member  State  level  varies,  three 
broad systems can be distinguished: 

• 

• 

In the first case (France, Italy…) the NGOs selected as beneficiaries of the 
Programme are the direct distributors of the food. They receive the food 
from  the  operator(s)  that  have  won  the  call(s)  for  tender  to  supply  the 
products,  then  organise  storage,  transport  to  their  distribution  centres 
and arrange the food's distribution. 

In  a  second  system  (Spain,  Lithuania  …)  the  NGOs  designated  as 
beneficiaries of the Programme are not the direct distributors. They act as 
an  interface  between  the  public  authority  level  and  the  organisations 
which  are  in  contact  with  the  deprived.  They  receive  the  food  from  the 
operators,  stock  it  in  storage  facilities  and  then  allocate  it  to  the 

Regulation (EU) No 121/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 

71  
February 2012 amending Council regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 1234/2007 as 
regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. 

iii 

 
 
                                                        
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

organisations responsible for the distribution. These include parishes and 
various kinds of social centres (orphanages, centres for the unemployed or 
the homeless…). 

•  Under a third system (e.g. in Belgium) the local public bodies responsible 

for social services are themselves in charge of the distribution. 

Participation 

Participation  in  the  programme  is  voluntary.  The  number  of  Member  States 
participating in the programme has more than doubled in eleven years, from nine 
Member  States  in  2001  to  twenty  in  201272.  The  same  twenty  Member  States 
have indicated that they wish to take part in 2013.  

The allocation of resources between Member States is based on population data 
and  statistics  on  poverty  provided  by  Eurostat.  The  Eurostat  indicator  used  to 
measure income poverty is the "at risk of poverty rate". This represents the share 
of people with an income below 60 % of the national "equalised median income".  

As Figure 5 shows in 2012 the main recipients were Italy (19% of the allocation 
with 95 million euros) followed by Spain (16% - 80.4 million), Poland (15% - 75.3 
million), France (14% - 70.6 million) and Romania (12% - 60.7 million). Germany, 
the  Netherlands,  the  UK  and  Denmark  participated  in  the  programme  initially, 
but no longer take part. 

Figure 5.  Allocations of MDP budget in 2012 (in %) 

RO
12,1%

SK
1%

SL
0,5%

FI
0,6%

BE
2,3%

BG
4,3%

CZ
0,03%

EE
0,5%

EL
4,3%

ES
16,1%

PT
3,9%

PL
15,1%

MT
0,1%

HU
2,7%

LU
0,03%

LT
1,5%

LV
1,1%

IT
19,1%

FR
14,1%

IE
0,5%

Final recipients of the aid 

The number of beneficiaries has risen sharply over the last five years (Figure 6). 
In 2011, Member States reported that over 18.9 million people benefited from the 

72 Most of the MS which joined the Union in 2004 also decided to participate in the programme. 

iv 

 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

programme,  which  corresponds  to  35%  of  the  estimated  number  of  deprived 
people in the 20 beneficiary Member States73.  

Figure 6.  Number of MDP beneficiaries 

Increasing number of aid receipients 
(capita)

20 000 000

15 000 000

10 000 000

5 000 000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

EU 27  10 698 519    13 474 314    13 149 105    14 423 854    18 072 152    18 403 851    18 986 182   

The Member States have significant freedom in planning and implementing the 
food distribution programme at national level.  The targeting is left to the social 
services in the Member States or to the organisations distributing the aid as they 
may assist persons without documents or who do not want to pass by the social 
services.  

Typically,  food  aid  is  provided  to  a  wide  range  of  people  living  in  poverty, 
including homeless people, orphans, single parents, big families, elderly, disabled 
persons or people suffering from serious and long-lasting diseases, unemployed 
persons, refugees or people in emergency situation (i.e. victims of disasters) 

The  differences  between  the  criteria  identified  by  the  participating  Member 
States  for  selecting  the  final  recipients  are  considerable.  However,  three  main 
groups can be distinguished:  

•  Definition  of  the  most  deprived  persons  on  the  basis  of  low  income,  i.e. 
persons  entitled  to  social  security  assistance  according  to  national  law: 
Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Poland. 

•  Definition  linked  to  housing  status,  i.e.  homeless  persons  or  at  risk  of 

becoming homeless: Czech Republic and Luxembourg. 

•  Definition based on two or more criteria, including low income, difficult living 
conditions, unemployment, health or disability, age-related dependency: this 
approach  is  followed  by  the  majority  of  participating  Member  States 
(Hungary,  Romania,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Ireland,  Slovenia,  Slovakia, 
Bulgaria and Malta).  

73 The indicator used is that of persons at risk of poverty. (see also Eurostat) 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

Usually, participating Member States that opted for a definition adopted directly 
by  the  national  authorities  apply  the  "low  income  criteria",  the  latter  coupled 
with  disabilities  (RO)  or  the  housing  criterion  (CZ).  Conversely,  those  Member 
States  that  left  the  definition  of  final  recipients  to  the  recognised  charitable 
organisations opted for a mix of criteria. 

Comparing the population at risk of poverty and the number of MDP beneficiaries 
on average about one in five is given assistance by the programme. In practice the 
ratio  is  probably  lower  as  the  implementation  figures  most  likely  include  some 
double counting, meaning a single individual more than once and up to as many 
times as he or she receives a food package or a meal. Double counting is also the 
most likely explanation for the very high proportions in some Member States.  

Figure 7. Ratio of the MDP beneficiaries to the population at risk of poverty 
for the year 2010 (Source Eurostat and MS implementation reports) 

The  volume  of  products  distributed  within  the  programme  has  risen  over  the 
years thanks to the increased budget available but also "exploiting" the increased 
value of the intervention products on the market, as happened in 2011 (Figure 8). 
In  2011  the  participating  Member  States  were  able  to  distribute  40%  more 
products than in 2010, mainly because of the increase of market prices between 
the market intervention and the transformation into marketable products. 

vi 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

Figure 8.  Volume of food products distributed 

Distributed food products
(tonnes)

700 000

600 000

500 000

400 000

300 000

200 000

100 000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

EU 27

195 115

258 517

 282 743   

 293 920   

446 053

485 136

687 829

Resources 

The  MDP  is  currently  funded  by  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund 
(EAGF).  The  EU's  budget  allocation  to  the  MDP  has  increased  over  the  years 
(Figure 9), from EUR 100 million in 1988 to EUR 500 million in 2013. 

The  main  budgetary  increases  took  place  in  1994  to  respond  to  the  Albanian 
refugee  crisis  and  in  2004  and  2006  in  view  of  the  EU  enlargement.  A  further 
budget  increase  was  granted  for  the  2009  programme  to  take  account  of  food 
price  inflation,  although  this  increase  did  not  fully  off-set  the  rising  cost  of 
providing the food aid. 

Regulation (EU) No 121/2012, revising the legal basis of the scheme, has set an 
annual budgetary ceiling for the years 2012 and 2013 of EUR 500 million. 

vii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

Figure 9. Total budget allocation to the MDP 1988-2012 (in millions Euros) 

The programme's reform process  

Over  time  the  CAP  has  been  substantially  reframed,  with  a  switch  of  emphasis 
from the primary objective of increasing productivity to enhancing the long-term 
sustainability  of  agriculture.  As  a  result,  both  the  range  and  the  quantity  of 
products  in  intervention  stocks  have  reduced.  To  supplement  the  increasingly 
limited resources available for the programme, it was modified in the mid-1990s 
to  allow  market  purchases,  but  only  subject  to  certain  conditions.  Since  1996, 
when intervention stocks were found to be temporarily not available they could 
have been complemented by a budgetary transfer, calculated by the Commission 
by  converting  the  "temporarily  missing"  intervention  stocks  into  an  equivalent 
monetary  value.  This  budget  was  used  to  purchase  food  on  the  free  market, 
through  calls  for  tender.  This  was  not  intended  as  a  long  term  solution  but  one 
that  could  be  called  upon  when  there  were  temporarily  insufficient  supplies  of 
certain products.  

From 1998 to 2005, all distributed food products came from intervention stocks 
and comprised olive oil, beef, sugar, milk powder, butter, cereals and rice.  

Since  2006,  according  to  availability,  the  products  have  been  supplied  from 
intervention  stocks  and/or  through  market  purchases.  In  2008  and  2009,  only 
sugar  was  available  from  intervention  stocks,  which  represented  respectively 
15%  and  13%  of  the  overall  allocation  in  monetary  terms.  In  2010  and  2011, 
however,  products  from  intervention  stocks  represented  respectively  87%  and 
97% of the overall allocation. In 2012, due to the low stock level, only a smaller 
part (28%) of the available resources was allocated in intervention products. 

viii 

 
 
Annex 2. The food distribution programme for the Most Deprived People 
(MDP) 

Figure 10. Breakdown of allocation under the MDP, 1995-2011 (in euro)  

500 000 000 

450 000 000 

400 000 000 

350 000 000 

300 000 000 

250 000 000 

200 000 000 

150 000 000 

100 000 000 

50 000 000 

-

market
purchase
Olive oil

Beef

sucre

SMP

Butter

Rice

Cereals

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Acknowledging that the limited availability of intervention stocks could become a 
problem  for  the  food  distribution  scheme,  the  Commission  first  published  a 
proposal  to  adjust  the  scheme  (including  measures  to  make  it  easier  to  access 
products from the open market) in 2008 and other amended proposals in 2010 
and 2011.  

Following  Court  ruling  and  the  entry  into  force  of  a  revised  legal  basis  for  the 
scheme74,  when  adopting  the  annual  plans  for  the  years  2012  and  2013  the 
Commission  will  have  to  give  priority  to  intervention  stocks,  if  available  and 
suitable  for  distribution.If  these  are  not  available,  monetary  allocations  for  the 
purchase of food products on the market can be granted.  

As  intervention  is  returned  to  its  original  function  as  a  safety  net,  it  cannot  be 
expected that the surplus stocks seen in the past will build up in the future75. 

However,  supply  forecasts  are  based  on  economic  models,  which  shed  light  on 
probable trends. There are always elements of unpredictability and it cannot be 
excluded  that  large  surpluses  of  certain  products  may  sometimes  become 
available. The situation can also arise in individual Member States that stocks are 
particularly  high  at  certain  times  of  the  year.  In  these  circumstances  it  may  be 
more economically practical to consider releasing these stocks to the programme, 
rather than incurring storage expenditure. 

74 Regulation (EU) No 121/2012 
75 AGRI, December 2011. PROSPECTS FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETS AND INCOME IN THE EU 2011–2020 

ix 

 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements 
Actual implementation issues are not covered by the Impact Assessment Report 
because they are largely pre-determined by decisions and choices already made. 
Yet  because  they  are  important  for  a  better  understanding  they  are  developed 
below.  

The starting points are: 

1.  The  funding  of  the  new  instrument  is  taken  from  the  allocations  to  the 
structural  funds  under  Heading  1b  "Economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion"  which  corresponds  to  Cohesion  Policy  instruments.    It  is 
therefore to be an instrument in shared management. 

2.  Existing  systems  and  mechanisms  should  be  used  as  far  as  possible.  It 

should not be necessary to set-up entirely new systems. 

At the same time the relatively small size of the instrument, as well as the nature 
flexible 
of 
implementation modalities.  

its  objectives  and  target  population,  calls 

for  simple  and 

Shared management 

Cohesion  Policy  instruments  are  implemented  in  shared  management  and 
through  operational  programmes  (OP)  covering  a  period  of  7  seven  years 
(corresponding to the MFF). Such programmes fall under the responsibility of a 
managing authority. This seven year programming is a major change compared 
to the MDP which is based on annual plans. However multi-annual planning has 
been a request by many stakeholders and should be welcomed. 

Operational  Programmes  are  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  in  accordance 
with  the  regulation.  For  instance  option  3  (a  broad  scope)  entails  that  the 
Member  State  proposes  an  allocation  of  its  resources  under  the  instrument  to 
food aid, homelessness and child deprivation.  This choice needs to be motivated 
and the Commission may suggest modifications. The same applies for a number 
of  important  issues  for  instance  the  criteria  or  procedures  to  be  used  to  select 
the  persons  to  be  assisted,  the  exact  goods  that  could  be  purchased  under  the 
programme  or  even  if  purchases  will  be  done  centrally  by  the  managing 
authority itself or by the organisations delivering them to the assisted persons. 
Ultimately  Member  State  and  Commission  will  agree  on  a  programme. 
Programmes of different Member States may show important differences.  

This  flexibility  allows  adapting  to  local  needs  and  context  and  ensures  respect 
for subsidiarity. It also means that making a priori estimates for EU wide levels 
of  support  for  given  target  groups,  the  numbers  reached,  the  results  expected, 
can only be based on important assumptions.  

Operational Programmes are also important elements to ensure both the respect 
of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  the  coherence  with  other  programmes 
including  the  ESF.    In  accordance  with  the  financial  regulation,  each  operation 
programme  will  be  subject  to  an  ex-ante  evaluation.  The  Operational 

x 

 
 
 
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements 

Programmes  should  set  out  in  particular  and  in  a  more  concrete  way  than  this 
can be done on the European level: 

•  What the programme aims to do and why;  

•  The existing national scheme(s); 

•  How complementarity with the European Social Fund is to be ensured; 

•  How operations and aid recipients will be selected; 

•  What  the  implementing  provisions  are  and  how  implementation  will  be 

monitored; 

•  How  stakeholders  were  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  the  Operational 

Programme 

•  A financing plan. 

Because the new instrument might be managed by authorities or bodies already 
familiar with the ESF, the Regulation allows Member States who wish to do so, to 
use the same procedures. On the other hand, the Regulation also allows Member 
States to continue the provision of Food assistance under mechanisms similar to 
those under the current AGRI scheme. Under the latter, foodstuffs are bought by 
national  authorities  and  made  available  to  entities,  often  NGOs,  who  distribute 
the food to the most needy.  

Flows of resources 

To  be  as  flexible  as  possible,  the  draft  Regulation  allows  three  models  of 
implementation: 

• 

• 

In  the  first  model,  the  managing  authorities  give  grants  to  the  partner 
organisations,  which  buy  the  food  or  goods  and  distribute  them  directly 
to the most deprived.  

In  the  second  model,  the  managing  authority  gives  grants  to  partner 
organisations  who  buy  the  food  or  goods  and  make  them  available  to 
their partners who distribute them directly to the most deprived.  

This model describes the situation of several existing networks:  a central 
(separate  legal)  entity  purchases  large  quantities  for  all  members  of  the 
network  to  obtain  better  prices.  Subsequently,  the  central  entity  makes 
the goods available to the other members which actually distribute them 
without necessarily having the capacity to make the actual purchases.  

• 

In the third model a public organisation purchases the food or goods and 
makes them available to indirect or direct partner organisations.  

This model allows a mix of the two previous regimes within one Member 
State.  It  would  allow  the  managing  authority  to  directly  give  money  to 

xi 

 
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements 

those  partner  organisations  where  this  is  appropriate,  while  involving 
intermediary  organisations  in  other  cases,  such  as  when  it  comes  to  the 
Food Banks that, according to their European charter, are not allowed to 
receive funding to buy foodstuffs.  

This  model  actually  copies  the  model  of  the  current  MDP  scheme  and 
allows  the  use  of  intervention  stocks  and  avoids  that  especially  smaller 
NGOs have to organise heavy purchasing procedures.  

EU platform 

The draft regulation foresees that the Commission will develop  an EU platform 
for  exchange  of  experiences.  This  has  been  suggested  by  the  consulted 
stakeholders'  umbrella  organisation,  and  taken  on  board  as  it  has  a  strong  EU 
added value.  

The EU platform will be financed by the technical assistance at the initiative of 
the Commission.  

Monitoring and evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation requirements are kept as simple as possible.  

Monitoring through annual implementation reports and annual meetings. 

Since  both  the  amount  of  funding  and  the  scope  of  the  Fund  are  relatively 
limited,  the  room  for  manoeuvre  after  approval  of  the  operational  programme 
(OP) will be limited.  

There  will  be  annual  review  meetings  between  the  MA  and  the  Commission, 
unless both parties agree there is no need for one. 

Establishing  a  monitoring  committee,  similar  to  the  one  required  for  the  ESF, 
would imply to include all stakeholders. Looking into the actual situation it can 
be  expected  that  there  will  be  a  high  overlap  between  representatives  for  the 
target  groups  and  potential  beneficiaries  of  the  Fund.  This  may  entail  serious 
conflicts of interests. Therefore, no monitoring committee will be required. 

Two structured surveys during the programming period. 

The Regulation provides the standard obligations in terms of ex ante and ex post 
evaluations.  

The Regulation also introduces two compulsory surveys on the assisted persons. 
The  results  of  these  surveys  will  allow  the  Commission  to  do  an  EU  wide 
evaluation on the possible impact of the FEAD.  

During  the  programming  period,  evaluations  at  the  initiative  of  the  MS  are 
optional.  

Eligibility of expenditures 

xii 

 
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements 

Three broad categories of expenditures can be distinguished: the costs of food or 
goods, the overheads associated to the distribution of the items and the costs of 
the accompanying measures.  

Costs of food and goods 

The draft FEAD regulation allows to reimburse the costs of food and goods either 
on the basis of incurred costs (invoices of the supply procedure) or according to 
the number of (packages of) items distributed, through a simplified cost option.  

Overheads associated to the provision of the material assistance.  

The  costs  of  transport,  storage  and  administration  will  be  reimbursed  on  the 
basis of a fixed flat rate of 5% of the overall value of food and goods distributed. 
This  percentage  is  used  under  the  current  AGRI  scheme,  and  it  is  below  the 
common threshold for overheads of 7%.  

A  limited  percentage  (1%)  is  provided  for  the  costs  of  transport  and  storage 
borne  by  a  national  organisation  which  makes  the  food  or  goods  available  to  a 
partner organisation (third model of implementation).  

Costs of the accompanying measures 

Considering  the  amounts  involved,  the  features  of  the  target  populations,  the 
nature of the potential activities supported, but also of the partner organisations 
that  will  deliver  them, it is essential  to  propose  a  very  simple  eligibility  rule  to 
establish the costs of accompanying measures.  

The  draft  regulation  fixes  5%  of  the  overall  value  of  the  food  and  goods 
distributed to be spend on accompanying measures. 

Management and control system 

The  management  and  control  system  stems  directly  from  the  Common 
Provisions  Regulation.  This  allows  Member  States  to  use  the  structures, 
procedures  and  teams  managing  the  ESF  if  they  so  wish.  They  would  then  not 
have to establish an entirely new management and control system.  

However, a number of simplifications have been introduced. The main ones are: 

Pre-financing 

All partner organisations consulted stressed that they do not have the ability to 
pre-finance the purchases of food or goods. Instead of annual pre-financings the 
Managing  Authority  will  receive  a  higher  initial  pre-financing.  Considering  the 
amounts available, an annual procedure seems superfluous. For the same reason, 
the  draft  Regulation  only  foresees  a  closure  at  the  end  of  the  programme 
implementation.  

Scope of audit 

Audits will cover all stages of implementation of the operation and all levels of 
the  distribution  chain,  except  for  the  stage  of  actual  distribution  to  the  most 

xiii 

 
Annex 3. Proposed implementation arrangements 

deprived,  unless  a  risk  assessment  establishes  a  specific  risk  of  irregularity  or 
fraud. 

Considering  the  nature  of  the  target  populations,  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
actual  distribution  (often  in  the  street)  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  partner 
organisations  to  submit  signed  lists  of end  recipients.  As  a  consequence, audits 
will be based on the stocks management documents of the partner organisations, 
but not on lists of beneficiaries. 

xiv 

 
 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

 Meeting of  24 may 2012 

The  meeting  on  24  May  2012  was  attended  by  representatives  of  the  European 
Level  umbrella  organisations  having  been  very  vocal  in  support  of  the 
continuation the MDP: European Federation of Food Banks (FEBA), the European 
Red  Cross,  Eurodiaconia,  Caritas-Europe,  the  European  Anti-  Poverty  Network 
(EAPN),  and  the  European  Federation  of  National  Organisations  Working  with 
the Homeless  (FEANTSA). The French Restos du Coeur was also invited in view 
of its active role in the campaign leading to the original creation of the MDP.  

1. 

THE SCOPE OF THE NEW INSTRUMENT 

All participants stressed that the foreseen amount of € 2.5 billion is actually too 
little. The representatives from FEBA referred to their position paper and to the 
need to keep the ruling of the ECoJ in mind. Eurodiaconia pointed to an increasing 
demand for food aid in view of the crisis. 

The  Red  Cross  representatives  welcomed  the  possibility  to  expand  the  scope 
beyond food aid but wondered which other services might be funded. There is a 
need  to  take  into  account  the  changing  profiles  of  the  food  aid  recipients  with 
many  more  elderly  people  and  working  poor.  It  may  be  necessary  to  focus  the 
instrument but much depends on what actually we want to achieve. The best is 
probably to have a mix of actions, some more aiming at emergency aid and others 
with a more long term vision. The future instrument could encourage innovation 
and learning.  

Eurodiaconia pointed out that there are many ways to deliver food aid not only 
distributing food packages. Food aid should be given in a way that empowers the 
recipients and cannot be linked to employment or work. It also  enquired which 
other actions might be funded. It mentioned a programme for homeless people in 
the Netherlands where food aid is limited in time but is also linked to other forms 
of  aid  such  as  housing,  furniture  and  clothing.  It  wondered  whether  the  new 
programme  could  fund  staff  as  this  would  allow  a  better  follow-up  of  "clients" 
than what is possible with volunteers only. Several of its member organisations 
already use the ESF for capacity building.  

Caritas  felt  that  Food  Aid  should  remain  the  core  of  the  new  programme  but 
suggested that it might be expanded to cover also other food related actions such 
as fostering local food economies and community gardens. Other lines of thought 
were action on youth unemployment and the European volunteers.  

EAPN wondered how far it would be possible to go without overlapping with the 
ESF. 

FEBA  wondered  whether  the  extended  scope  could  cover  transnational 
cooperation (for instance even transporting excess stocks from one Member State 
to  another)  and  social  economy  (f.i.  in  food  processing).  In  any  case,  the  next 
instrument will need to be based on two pillars, food aid and social re-insertion. 
The social re-insertion part should be largely at the discretion of the MS.  

xv 

 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

FEANTSA pointed out that while part of the membership did use the MDP another 
was sceptical about food aid as such.  For the shelters at least, access to food is 
not  an  issue.  For  some  groups  re-integration  in  society  may  be  made  more 
difficult  by  food  aid.  Also  emergency  aid  financing  is  much  more  likely  to  be 
increased by Member States. 

Eurodiaconia and Caritas pointed out that provision of health care is not normally 
an issue and should not be covered by the new instrument.  

2. 

THE  LINKS  TO  SOCIAL  INCLUSION  ACTIONS  AND  TO  COHESION 
POLICY 

All  participants  expressed  worries  about  the  links  between  the  new  instrument 
and the ESF. 

COM  clarified  that  there  is  no  intention  to  integrate  the  new  instrument  in  the 
ESF but rather to create a new instrument based on article 175 of the TFEU. 

Eurodiaconia pointed out that the two instruments serve very different purposes. 
Food  aid  in  particular  should  not  be  linked  to  access  to  the  labour  market. 
Eurodiaconia  pointed  to  the  profile  of  the  final  recipients  as  only  those  with  a 
legal status can be given access to official social inclusion services. Food aid is not 
only a point of entry, a gateway, but offers a point of stabilisation. A "stabilisation 
programme"  could  provide  a  platform  from  to  access  other  services  or 
programmes.  

3. 

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO MAXIMISE THE IMPACT   

All  participants  rejected  co-financing  as  a  measure  to  increase  impact.  The  Red 
Cross pointed to significant de-facto co-financing by the organisations delivering 
the  aid  in  the  form  of  labour  and  other  resources.  Caritas  thought  that  national 
co-financing might not be realistic. 

Restô  du  Coeur  reminded  the  need  to  have  a  clear  European  Added  Value.  One 
possibility is to facilitate transnational cooperation.  

Restô  du  Coeur  and  FEBA  stressed  that  food  aid  was  often  a  gateway  to  access 
other  services  and  therefore  creates  a  leverage  effect.  In  that  context  FEBA 
explicitly opposed the idea of working with vouchers as experimented in the US. 
Vouchers lead to a loss of direct contact with the final recipients. 

FEBA mentioned explicitly the actions against food waste and specific collection 
campaigns  which  are  facilitated  by  the  existence  of  the  European  programme. 
More  generally  it  pointed  to  the  importance  of  stability  to  run  and  maintain  an 
organisation largely dependent on volunteer work. For FEBA the programme is a 
concrete expression of solidarity.  

FEANTSA expressed doubts as to whether food aid was in all countries a gateway 
to other (social inclusion) services. Impact could be increased by a focus on the 
most vulnerable which could be the homeless people but not necessarily only the 
homeless. The ESF has difficulties reaching these more vulnerable persons.   

xvi 

 
 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

xvii 

 
 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

Meeting of 27 June 2012 

The meeting on 27 June 2012 was attended by representatives of the European 
Federation  of  Food  Banks  (FEBA),  the  European  Red  Cross,  Eurodiaconia, 
Caritas-Europe,  the  European  Anti-  Poverty  Network  (EAPN),  and  the  French 
Restos du Coeur. 

Introduction  

EMPL (D. Reyntjens) opened the meeting by confirming that the Commission will 
make  a  proposal  for  the  Regulation  of  a  new  standing  alone  instrument  under 
the Cohesion Policy.  

It was suggested that the discussion would focus on five main elements:  

1)  The scope of the new instrument; 

2)  The potential use of intervention stocks; 

3)  Implementation issues; 

4)  Monitoring and evaluation.   

COM  also  insisted  that  the  elements  to  be  shared  with  the  stakeholders  during 
the  meeting  were  still  under  development,  and  not  yet  fully  validated  by  the 
hierarchy.  

Scope of the new instrument 

COM  explained  that  the  new  instrument  should  be  enshrined  in  the  Cohesion 
policy  and  should  complement  the  existing  financial  instruments  addressing 
social cohesion , by providing support to the people too excluded to benefit from 
the activation measures of the European Social Fund.  

To  this  end,  the  options  for  the  scope  of  the  new  instrument  examined  in  the 
impact assessment would cover:  

1)  food aid; 

2)  food aid and accompanying measures; 

3)  broad scope and accompanying measures. 

The accompanying measures would consist in activities aiming at the social 
reintegration for the most deprived, while having a link with the material 
assistance. For example, under option 2, the measures accompanying the 
distribution of food aid could be advising on balanced diet, food-waste 
minimising cooking guidance 

The  broad  scope  could  consist  in  several  aspect  of  severe  deprivation,  food 
deprivation but also homelessness or children severe deprivation.  

xviii 

 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

Most  participants  welcomed  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  instrument,  in 
particular its better integration in the Cohesion policy, even though the potential 
overlap with the ESF would be indeed a challenge. 

Some stakeholders' representatives (Caritas, FEBA and Restos du Coeur) insisted 
that food aid should remain the core of the new instrument.  

Following a question from FEBA, COM indicated that no decision was taken yet 
on  the  compulsory  or  optional  support  by  each  Member  States  of  the  various 
types  of  deprivation,  in  the  case  of  a  broad  scope,  although  flexibility  is  rather 
likely.  

Equally,  COM  clarified  that  no  decision  is  taken  yet  on  the  co-financing,  while 
noting the unanimous opposition of all stakeholders.  

Potential use of intervention stocks.  

COM  presented  briefly  the  potential  features  of  two  options  (compulsory  or 
optional use of intervention stocks) that are being considered.  

It also stressed that the rationale that presided the creation of the current food 
aid instrument, i.e. existence of agriculture surpluses, no longer prevails.  

COM  also  stressed  that  the  use  of  intervention  stocks  would  mean  additional 
administrative  burden  that  would  need  to  be  compensated  by  significant  and 
stable enough benefits it make their use worth.  

The  Restaurants  du  Coeur  in  particular  felt  that  a  link  with  agricultural  stocks 
needed to be maintained. 

Implementation issues. 

COM explained that the inclusion in the Cohesion policy calls for a functioning of 
the  new  scheme  based  on  the  seven  years  operational  programmes  and  a 
management and control system similar to the one of the European Social Fund.  

FEBA  wondered  whether  such  a  long  period  could  be  precarious,  especially  in 
the context of increasing demand for aid in crisis. COM replied that, would need 
occur, the operational programmes could be amended.  

COM also indicated that under the new instrument, the charitable organisations 
may receive funding instead of foodstuff as it is the case under the current Food 
for Deprived Programme.  

With the exception of FEBA, all stakeholders' representatives spoke in favour of 
this  possibility,  assuring  that  their  respective  organisations  have  the  sufficient 
experience and the capacity to manage EU funds.  

The Restaurants du Coeur pointed to an issue also raised by the ECA, namely the 
administrative  capacity  of  smaller  organisations  to  handle  European  funds 
instead of goods. 

xix 

 
Annex 4. Minutes of the stakeholders meetings 

Concerns  were  raised  about  the  partnership  between  public  authorities  and 
NGOs  at  national  level.  COM  stressed  that,  as  for  the  European  Social  Fund, 
partnership will be a principle of the new instrument.  

Monitoring and evaluation 

The intention of COM, welcome by all participants, is to reinforce the monitoring 
system.  To  this  end,  stakeholders'  representatives  were  asked  to  share  any 
elements  they  would  have  on  definition  by  their  organisation  of  the 
"participants", as well as data on costs, etc… 

COM  is  also  considering  introducing  a  mid-term  evaluation,  an  idea  also 
supported by the organisations.  

CONCLUSIONS  

The  Commission  thanked  the  different  participants  for  their  contribution  to  the 
discussion and indicated that it intends to adopt a proposal for a Regulation in the 
autumn. 

xx 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5. Profile of food aid recipients 

Surveys  conducted  by  different  organisations  in  several  Member  States  draw  a 
very  varied  picture  of  the  food  aid  recipients  (see  boxes  below  on  surveys 
organised  in  the  FR,  PT  and  UK).  These  surveys  inform  about  the  clientele  of 
these  organisations,  irrespective  of  whether  the  support  they  received  came 
exclusively from the MDP or not: 

Profile of Banques Alimentaires (FR) beneficiaries (2010) 

•  More than 2/3 of the recipients are women (68% in 2010; 70% in 2008); 
•  61% are adults between 26 and 50 years of age, 10% are younger and 

29% older. Yet 53% have dependent children. 

•  The majority are not fully marginalised (71% have fixed housing) but are 

"fragilised" and depend on income support.  

•  Total household income is usually less than 1000 € per month (70% of 

respondents – 24% have less than 500€). 

•  Food (26%) is after rent (33%) and utilities (37%), the major cost the 

beneficiaries face. 

•  The survey also confirmed: 

o  Presence of many retired people (11%); 
o  The  relative high participation of persons in employment (15%)  
o  The impact of personal or family issues. 39% of the beneficiaries 

are divorced or separated (the national average is 8%). 

Source:  Press conference by Banques Alimentaires in November 2010.  Presentation 
available 
http://www.hauts-de-seine.net/solidarites/ressources-
documentaires/rapports-partenaires  

at: 

xxi 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5. Profiles of food aid recipients 

Profile of  (PT) recipients of aid from social solidarity institutions (2010) 

•  75% of the recipients are women. 
•  48% are 66 years or older.  6.5% are younger than 30 years.  
•  Total income is usually less than 500 € per month (49% of respondents 

have even less than 250€). 

•  17% are working poor, 20% unemployed, 63% retired 
•  Spending on food is mentioned by 72% of the respondents as a major 
preoccupation followed by housing (69%), health care (35%) and 
education of the children (17%) 

•  27% experienced lack of food at least once a week in the last three 

months 

•  The survey also showed: 

o  The relative high participation of persons in employment (17%) 

and the very high proportion of retired (60%); 

o  The impact of the crisis in the country. 90% of the organisations 
surveyed cited unemployment as a reason for the observed 
increase in support requests. Increased debts were cited by 59% 
and divorce and separation by 43%.  

Source:    Caracterização  das  Instituições  de  Solidariedade  Social  e  das  Famílias 
carenciadas  

Available at: http://www.bancoalimentar.pt/news/view/269 

Profile of FareShare (UK) food aid recipients (2011) 

•  Homeless people, or those at risk of homelessness, are substantially 
represented among the groups of vulnerable people reached by 
FareShare's community food network, although the proportion of these 
groups is decreasing. They represent the main client group for one third 
of the associations. 

•  The next major client groups are in order of schoolchildren, persons with 
mental health problems closely followed by families.  The diversity among 
the vulnerable groups catered to by the network is increasing,  

•  Around 60% of service users are men.  

•  Almost half of service users are adults between the ages of 26 and 64, and 
a quarter are in their late teens or early twenties. 14.5% are children 
under 16 and 13.2% are elderly people.  

Source:  2011 National Impact Survey Available at: 

http://www.fareshare.org.uk/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/Report-online.pdf 

xxii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor persons in the EU Member States 

The  following  table  is based  on  the  preliminary  answers  received on  the  question "In  which  areas did  the  Member  State improve  the 
access to services for the poor?" of the Country Survey on Active Inclusion conducted in 2011-12. Unless otherwise specified (e.g. Social 
Assistance (SA) recipients), the programmes apply to the general category of 'the poor' (blank field= nothing mentioned). It should be 
taken  into  account  that  in  many  Member  States  support  to  poor  citizens  is  very  much  delegated  to  the  local  level.  Thereby  the  exact 
provisions may also differ between regions or even municipalities.  

Table 6. Answers to question 13 of the Country Survey on Active Inclusion (2011-12) 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

AT 

BE 

SA recipients receive 
RVV status, granting 
automatic right to 
substantial 
reimbursement of 
medical costs and 
social maximum billing 
(guarantee that health 
expenses will not 
exceed certain 
threshold) 

Flanders:  
SA recipients receive 
Lower contribution to 
care insurance against 
risks at old age 
(Vlaamse 
zorgverzekering), 

SA recipients 
receive 
'Mobilpass' i.e. 
free public 
transportation 

exempted from 
radio and TV 
fees  

free access to 
adult education 
centers  

Flanders: 
SA recipients 
receive social 
season ticket 
('Buzzy Pazz') 
granting lower 
public 
transport rates 
on De-Lijn 

Flanders: 
Non-automatic right to 
heating allowance 
(stookoliefonds), 
social 
(equals 
rate 
lowest  rate  on  market) 
or  social  maxima  for  gas 
and electricity 

Non-automatic 
right: social 
phone rate 
provided by 
Telecom 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

free access to 
public 
swimming 
pool 

socio-cultural 
participation 
of minors 
education, 
youth, culture 
and sports (as 
decided by 
Council 18/19 
Nov. 2010) 
Flanders: 
Social  rate  for 
for 
holidays 
low 
income 
families  or  SA 
recipients 

xxiii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

BG 

CY 

SA recipients' health 
expenses may be 
covered 
Social Assistance (SA) 
recipients receive free 
medical care, 
borrowing of wheel 
chairs 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

heating allowance paid 
to provider, social 
housing allocated  

SA recipients 
have access to 
free public 
transportation 

CZ 

For SA recipients: Free 
medical care 

Social rental housing 

DE 

Stipulated by national  
law psycho-social 
supervision, drug 
counselling 

DK 

Often reduced 
prices with 
local public 
transport for 
SA recipients 

A mixed system of social 
rental housing and 
housing allowances 

Stipulated by national  
law  childcare 
assistance 
On the level of the 
commune: e.g. lower 
fees in Kindergarten 
etc. 

EE 

Depending on 
municipality social 
services, counseling,   

Depending on 
municipality 
provision of free 
meals, day centers, 
provision of clothes 

Depending on 
municipality social 
housing 

Financial 
literacy 
programmes at 
secondary 
school 
(planned for 
primary 
schools, too) 
curricula,  debt 
counselling 

Stipulated by 
national  law 
debt-resolving 
assistance and 
counselling in 
some 
municipalities 

Debt 
counselling for 
low-income 
persons and 
persons in debt 

Depending on 
municipality 
Debt 
counselling 

On the level of 
the commune: 
often reduced 
fees 
Volkshochschule 
etc.  

Decided on 
the level of the 
commune SA 
recipients 
often get 
access for free 
or at reduced 
prices 

xxiv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

Health insurance 
extended  for 
unemployed and 
households with low-
work intensity (law 
3996/2011, 
Ν.4052/2012) 
Health services are 
provided to persons 
without resources 
Ceiling for health care 
costs (hospitals, 
medicine) for SA 
recipients 
For RSA (Revenu de 
solidarité Active) 
recipients : free 
complementary health 
insurance 

Depending on income: 
medical cards granting 
free health care 
services  

Social programme for 
homeless in 
collaboration with 
orthodox NGO "Apostoli" 

Housing allowance 

Child day care fee may 
be zero for low-income 
families 

For RSA 
recipients: 
subsidised or 
free public 
transport 

gas consumption 
allowance paid to 
provider 

free meals in education 
institutes, free study 
books in education 

debt service 
support 

Depending on 
municipality: SA 
receive health services, 
psycho-social services  

'Social Card': food 
expenditures and 
other utilities since 
2008 

Gas and electricity bonus 
for households with very 
low work intensity and 
large households since 
2009 
Housing allowance 
varies according to 
province/region 

SA recipients get 
priority access to 
childcare centres 

Depending on 
municipality: 
SA receive debt 
counselling 
services 

xxv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

LT 

LU 

Medical expenses 
covered for low-wage 
earners 

SA recipients 
have free 
access to 
public 
transportation 

Social housing aid 
providing temporary 
physical shelter for 
needy, housing 
allowances 

depending on 
municipality children 
of SA recipients may 
be eligible to free 
board at schools, social 
scholarships, school's 
supplies at the 
beginning of the school 
year; children of very 
low income families 
may receive two free 
school meals per day 
(free breakfast 
abolished since 1 
January 2010) 
“cheque-service” 
(child-care service 
voucher) since 2009 
reduces costs for low 
income families, 
For  SA  recipients:  22 
a 
additional  hours 
week free childcare for 
0-12  year  olds  (0-25 
hours  a  week  instead 
of 0-3 hours a week for 
people  not  receiving 
social assistance.  

LV 

Low-income earners 
are guaranteed fully 
subsidised healthcare 
services and 
compensation for 
drugs , psychological 
support 

Depending on 
municipality: 
catering  

Depending on 
municipality: Social 
housing, housing 
allowance, over-night 
shelter 

Depending on 
municipality: 
Mortgage, 
finance 
counselling, 
free courses on 
banking 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

For SA 
recipients: 
National 
Language 
Institute 
offers 
language 
classes at 
reduced rate  

Low-income 
households 
have free 
access to TV 

xxvi 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

Free of charge 
healthcare for SA and 
other vulnerable 
groups  
Centres for Youth and 
Family (Centrum voor 
Jeugd en Gezin: ‘CJG’ 
established in 2007-
2011) provides 
preventive family 
services 
Not-insured persons may be granted purpose 
benefit covering fully or partially health 
expenses, reimbursement of drugs 
Social Services: 
social work specialist consulting, care or 
nursing services,  stay and services at a social 
assistance house, e.g. assistance with 
organisation of funeral  
Depending on 
municipality: for 
elderly and SA 
recipients: 
contribution to 
healthcare expenses 
Psycho-social 
counselling, drug 
counselling 

Depending on 
municipality: social 
shops to collect 
donations of non-
perishable goods; 
collection of 
clothes, goods and 
food 

For SA recipients: rent 
allowance, subsidies to 
water and electricity 
expenses  

SA recipient may receive 
rent allowance  

For SA 
recipients: 
Subsidies for 
telephone bills 

Debt-solving 
counselling 

crisis 
intervention or 
in-kind goods, 
food clothes 

Means-tested housing 
allowance, supervised 
temporary 
accommodation 

Subsidised 
seasons tickets 

Subsidised 
transportation  tickets, 
school books, 
scholarships, meals 

xxvii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

Law 208/1997: 
Social Canteens 
(financed and 
administered by 
local governments) 
providing two 
warm meals a day 
and subsidised food 
to SA recipients, 
low-income 
families (118 
canteens in 2009, 
mostly in urban 
areas) 

RO 

for MI recipients: 
Health insurance  
covered  

for MI recipients: 
Social Aid and 
Emergency Aid  

SE 

For SA recipients: 
alcohol and drug 
counselling/check-up, 
family assistance 

Since Jan 2009 
coverage of full health 
services for poorest, 

SI 

food packages, free 
clothing and free 
vacation provided 
by NGOs 

Eligibility Threshold for 
Heating allowance has 
been lowered for low-
income households 
(Emergency ordinance 
07/10/2009) , for MI 
recipients:  heating 
expenses are fully 
covered 

For SA recipients: 
Housing help 

SK 

Housing benefit as part 
of Benefit in Material 
Need 

SA recipients are 
exempted from child 
care fees, subsidised 
public transport for 
secondary school 
pupils, subsidised 
school meals for poor 
children 
For children of poor 
households: 
Subsidised school 
meals; For children of 
SA recipients also 
school supplies, 
exempted from 
kindergarten fees 

Free legal aid 

SA recipients 
are exempted 
from TV fees 

xxviii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

MS 

Health and Social 
Services 

Food 

Transport 

Housing 

Childcare / 
Education 

Communica-
tion 

Banking 

Education 

Sports, 
Leisure, 
Arts & 
Culture  

National Health 
Service: Free health 
care for all; for low-
income earners: free 
prescriptions, 
dentistry, eye care, 
wigs and fabric 
supports, and 
healthcare travel costs.  

UK 

Healthy start – 
IS/JSA(IB) are 
qualifying benefits 
for ‘healthy start 
vouchers’:  
Recipients may be 
able to get vouchers 
worth £3.10 for 
milk, fresh fruit and 
vegetables or infant 
formula for 
pregnant women 
and children, Free 
vitamin 
supplements  

CitizenAdviceBureau 
(CAB): Housing advice 
services 

Since 2010/22011: 
free school meals for 
primary school 
children in out-of work 
and low-income 
working families, 
For low-income 
families: school 
clothing grants or 
vouchers  

CAB: Debt 
counselling 

The table below checks the complementarity of ESF and FEAD for specific types of support. The list is based on answers received from 
Member States on the Country survey of Active Inclusion(see Table 6).    

Table 7. ESF eligibility of forms of non-financial assistance 

Needs 

Existing schemes in Member States 

Food 

Various forms of food aid (soup kitchens, food 
banks, social groceries, specific food distribution 
according to specific needs or types of 
beneficiaries, such as baby food) – often more 

Eligible for ESF support under the 
following investment priorities76 

Comment 

None 

Falls within the remit of the current MDP. 

76 See also the key actions identified under the ESF investment priorities (SWD, 2012. CSF) 

xxix 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

Needs 

Existing schemes in Member States 

Eligible for ESF support under the 
following investment priorities76 

Comment 

reliance on civil society/churches than on public 
authorities 
Food distribution integrated within the provision 
of other social services 

None 

Transport  General subsidisation of (local) public transport 

and reduced prices for recipients of SA 

Heating 

Measures to address fuel poverty, such as targeted 
vouchers 

Housing 

Shelters for the homeless 

Health 

Housing rental/acquisition 
Access to health care 

This is an eligible expenditure of the 
ESF when relating to 
employment/social inclusion 
purposes 
None 

•  Combating discrimination based 
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age 
or sexual orientation: 

•  Enhances access to (…) social 
services for the homeless 

None 
•  Active inclusion; 
• 

Integration of marginalised 
communities such as Roma; 
•  Combating discrimination based 
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age 

All MDP stakeholders consulted would contend that 
food distribution is de facto always linked to other 
social services even if no obligation is placed at the 
level of the individuals assisted.  
Financial assistance 
Difficult to justify if not related to social inclusion 
activities and therefore eligible under ESF.  

Partly overlapping with ERDF IP: Supporting energy 
efficiency and renewable energy in the  (…) housing 
sector 
Financial assistance 

The traditional intervention on homelessness is the 
"staircase model" or "continuum of care model" in 
which homeless people pass through several stages of 
temporary before being given accession stable 
housing.   
There is now a new approach called "Housing First" 
which gradually gains ground in EU Member States.  
According to this model homeless people should 
access immediately stable housing with individualised 
support.  In some MS this involves also the provision of 
so-called starter kits. 
Financial assistance 
Only eligible under FEAD as part of accompanying 
measures, otherwise the risk of overlap with ESF is too 
high 

xxx 

 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

Needs 

Existing schemes in Member States 

Care 

Long-term care for the elderly and people with 
disabilities 

Long-term 
care 

Support to informal carers for the elderly and for 
people with disabilities; 

Childcare 

Childcare (forms of childcare not related to the 
employability of parents; e.g. after-school care)  

Eligible for ESF support under the 
following investment priorities76 

or sexual orientation; 

•  Enhancing access to affordable, 
sustainable and high-quality 
services, including health care 
and social services of general 
interest. 

•  Equality between men and 
women and reconciliation 
between work and private life; 

•  Active inclusion; 
•  Combating discrimination based 
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age 
or sexual orientation; 

•  Enhancing access to affordable, 
sustainable and high-quality 
services, including health care 
and social services of general 
interest 

• 

•  Enhance access to affordable care 
services,  care for dependent 
persons, including the elderly, 
through investment in 
sustainable care services 
Integration of marginalised 
communities such as Roma: 
•  Reducing early school leaving and 
promoting equal access to good 
quality early childhood, primary 
and secondary education ; 
•  Combating discrimination based 
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, 

Comment 

Not eligible for FEAD support because there is too 
much overlap with ESF 

Not considered as adequate for FEAD as the creation of 
e.g. day-care facilities could be supported by ESF and 
ERDF and other support to informal carers is probably 
best done by actual financial support.  

Only eligible under FEAD as part of accompanying 
measures, otherwise the risk of overlap with ESF is too 
high 

xxxi 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.  Non-financial assistance to poor people in the EU Member States 

Needs 

Existing schemes in Member States 

Childcare 

Parenting support; 

Education 

Provision of educational material (e.g books); 

Eligible for ESF support under the 
following investment priorities76 
religion or belief, disability, age 
or sexual orientation; 

•  Enhancing access to affordable, 
sustainable and high-quality 
services, including health care 
and social services of general 
interest 
None 

•  Although not spelled out, supply 
of educational material is a 
traditionally eligible expenditures 
of ESF education related 
interventions 

Comment 

As an accompanying measure to support materially 
deprived children 
As an accompanying measure to support materially 
deprived children 

xxxii 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7. Sensitivity to increasing food prices 

Following  a  steep  rise  in  agricultural  commodity  prices,  food  prices  in  the  EU 
have increased more rapidly than overall inflation since 2006 (see figure 11).  

Low income groups spend a higher proportion of their income on food than other 
groups  as  it  is  basic  need.  Therefore  food  price  increases  concern  low  income 
households more than groups with a higher income. Furthermore higher income 
households  can  pay  higher  prices  for  food,  by  either  saving  less  money  or  by 
economising on other – less basic – goods; strategies which are not available to 
low  income  households:  they  neither  save  money  nor  spent  it  on  luxury  goods 
(on which savings would be possible). 

This situation is compounded by the ongoing financial and economic crisis. In a 
recent report, the World Bank looked at how households coped with the crisis77. 
It  concludes  that  the  most  common  strategy  adopted  involved  reducing 
household expenditures. Surveyed households reduced expenditures on a broad 
range  of  goods  and  services.  Durable  goods  purchases  and  food  expenditures 
were  reduced.  Alarmingly,  food  purchases  were  reduced  by  the  poor,  whose 
nutritional status was already at risk to begin with. 

Figure 11. Evolution of food prices compared to the consumer prices index 
(2005 =100) 

On  average,  at  EU-27  level,  spending  on  food  accounts  for  more  than  33  %  of 
expenditure  of  those  people  in  the  lowest  income  quintile  compared  with  only 
17% for households in the highest income quintile. In most EU12 countries food 
expenditure  accounts  for  even  more,  reaching,  for  example,  in  Romania  68%  of 
total expenditure in the lowest income group78. 

77 The  World  Bank,  2011.  The  jobs  crisis:  household  and  government  responses  to  the  great  recession  in 
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 
78 Structure of consumption expenditure by income quintile (Source Eurostat: data for 2005) 

xxxiii 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 7. Sensitivity to increasing food prices 

Figure 12. Average share of income spent on food by households of the 
lowest income quintile - 2005 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EU27 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SL 

SK FI

SE UK

Given that the share of expenditure on food in the lowest income groups is fairly 
high,  the  effort  of  the  poorest  people  to  minimize  their  expenditure  on  food  is 
much bigger than for higher income groups. A reduction in food expenditures is 
likely  to  be  associated  with  higher  energy  density  diets,  i.e.  increased 
consumption of starches, added sugars and fats which are the cost saving dietary 
elements.  The  main  reason  for  such  dietary  unfriendly  behaviour  is  satisfying 
energy needs. This relationship between retail prices and dietary composition of 
the  food  has  as  a  consequence  that  the  balanced  diet  and  related  health 
conditions  of  lowest  income  groups  are  substantially  threatened  by  efforts  to 
minimise  their  food  expenditure.  Moreover  the  spending  on  other  goods  and 
services is also affected. 

xxxiv 

 
 
 
 
Annex 8.  Homelessness   

Profile of homeless people 

Homeless  people  are  still  in  majority  single,  male,  middle  aged,  and  have 
addiction  and/or  mental  health  problems.    But  the  profile  is  rapidly  changing 
with more families and women becoming homelessness, and unemployment and 
housing  costs  as  additional  causes/triggers  of  homelessness  (see  "new 
homeless" in Greece for instance).  A very worrying trend is the rapid increase in 
youth  homelessness  –  also  in  richer  countries  (Denmark  +20%,  Netherlands 
+15%),  and  homelessness  amongst  migrants  (especially  those  with  precarious 
legal status)79.  

The  ETHOS  classification  of  homelessness  and  severe  housing  exclusion 
acknowledges that homelessness is a dynamic process and that homeless people 
jump frequently from one category into the other.  However, this classification is 
not widely used in a European context. As a consequence the few data which do 
exist on the actual number of persons experiencing homelessness cannot easily 
be combined and analysed. Extrapolations based on data from some EU member 
States combined with information from the US yield an estimation of 4.1 million 
people80. 

Political demand for EU action on homelessness  
In  2009  the  European  Commission  and  the  Member  States  (through  the  Social 
Protection  Committee)  focused  on  homelessness.  The  outcomes  were  national 
reports  on  homelessness  and  an  analytical  statement  calling  for  a  number  of 
actions.81 On the basis of the work the EU Council of Ministers called on member 
states  to  develop  integrated  homelessness  policies  based  on  housing-led 
approaches82.  

In a Written Declaration (2010) and in a resolution adopted by almost 600 MEPs 
(2011) the European Parliament called for an EU strategy on homelessness83. The 
resolution  includes  details  how  such  a  strategy  should  look  like.  This  request  is 
supported  by  the  EU  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee84 .  

In  2012  the  PEP  conference  (annual  European  event  with  people  experiencing 
poverty) focused on homelessness and called for more EU action in this area. The 
recommendations from the PEP might be annexed to the conclusion of the next 
EPSCO Council meeting.   

Basis for EU action on homelessness 

In  their  2012  National  Reform  Programmes  at  least  half  of  the  member  states 
have  referred  to  homelessness  as  a  priority  issue  of  their  social  inclusion 
policies.  

79 FEANTSA 
80 Frazer, H., E. Marlier and I. Nicaise, 2010. Feuille de route pour l'inclusion sociale pour l'Europe 2020. 
81 http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/network-of-independent-
experts/2009/homelessness-and-housing-exclusion.  
82 Joint report Social Protection & Social Inclusion 2010 
83 link to the EP resolution 
84 CoR (2010)  and EESC (2011) 

xxxv 

 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 8.  Progress at EU level on homelessness   

In 2010 the EU adopted the European Platform Against Poverty Communication 
(EPAP).  The  EPAP  is  a  flagship  initiative  of  the  Europe2020  strategy. 
Homelessness  is  thereby  identified  as  one  of  the  worst  forms  of  poverty  and 
social exclusion on which Member States and European level have to join forces 
to avoid any deterioration of the situation and to work towards improvement. 

The  Irish  presidency  of  the  EU  will  call  the  first  ever  European  meeting  of 
Ministers  about  homelessness  in  January  2013  in  Brussels.    This  will  be  an 
important  political  moment  and  an  occasion  to  kick  off  the  EC  action  plan  on 
homelessness  

The  Social Protection Committee (SPC)  included  a focus  on  homelessness in its 
2012 work plan – foreseen for fall 2012.    

Interventions in favour of homeless people 

Support to homeless people distinguishes between emergency approaches (night 
shelters and soup kitchens) and reintegration approaches.  In several countries 
these interventions are also institutionally separated and operate under different 
legal and funding frameworks (see for instance in France the distinction between 
"hébergement  d'urgence"  (Samu  Social)  and  "hébergement  de  réinsertion 
sociale").   

The emergency approach has not changed much over time, mainly the physical 
quality  of  the  night  shelters  has improved  in  most  countries.  There  will  always 
be  a  need  for  emergency  responses  to  cater  for  people  in  temporary  life  crises 
but  the  general  tendency  across  Europe  is  a  reduction  of  size  and  public 
investment in emergency homeless services.   

The traditional intervention to reintegrate homeless is the "staircase model" or 
"continuum  of  care  model"  in  which  homeless  people  pass  through  several 
stages  of  temporary  accommodation  (night  shelter,  short  stay  shelter,  longer 
stay shelter, half way houses...) before reaching stable housing.  The logic behind 
this  model  is  that  people  need  time  to  stabilise  their  life  situation  and  need  to 
solve  (most  of)  their  socio-psychological  problems  before  they  can  live  in 
"normal"  housing.    Homeless  people  need  to  be  made  "housing-ready".    This 
system  has  caused  a  continuous  growth/diversification  of  the  homelessness 
service  sector;  rotation  of  homeless  people  in  the  "homeless  system"  with 
limited outflow to "normal" or supported housing.   

Therefore the reintegration approach has moved increasingly towards "Housing-
First" approaches. According to this model homeless people should go directly to 
stable  housing  with 
individualised  (multi-disciplinary  where  necessary) 
support85.  The approach has been tested/evaluated and was found to be more 
effective (better outcomes in terms of housing stability and wellbeing) and more 
cost effective (up to 20.000€ savings per person per year)86 than the traditional 
staircase approach.  

85 Culhane  D.P  and  S.  Metraux,  2008.  Rearranging  the  Deck  Chairs  or  Reallocating  the  Lifeboats? 
Homelessness  Assistance  and  Its  Alternatives.  Journal  of  the  American  Planning  Association,  74(1):  111-
121. 
86 Basu  A.,  R.  Kee,  D.  Buchanan,  and  L.    Sadowski,  2012  .  Comparative  Cost  Analysis  of  Housing  and  Case 
Management  Program  for  Chronically  Ill  Homeless  Adults  Compared  to  Usual  Care.  HSR:  Health  Services 
Research 47:1, Part II; and 

xxxvi 

 
 
                                                        
Annex 8.  Progress at EU level on homelessness   

This  housing  first  approach  also  provides  funding  opportunities  for  the  FEAD. 
Starters'  packs  are  sets  of  basic  goods  allowing  homeless  single  persons  or 
households  to  effectively  occupy  the  lodging  they  have  been  allocated.  Some 
organisations  provide  up  to  8  different  packs:  Crockery/Cutlery;  Pots/pans  & 
kitchen  utensils;  Cleaning  Items;  Single  Bedding  packs;  Double  Bedding  Packs; 
Towels; Curtains and Small electrics.  

Pleace, N., 2012. Le logement d'abord. Observatoire Europeen sur le Sans-Abrisme.  

xxxvii 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                               
Annex 9. Child poverty 

The data and figures in this annex are taken from the SPC Advisory Report to the 
European Commission on Tackling Poverty, Promoting Child Well-Being of June 
2012.   

Europe's social and economic future greatly depends on its capacity to break the 
transmission  of  disadvantage  across  generations.  Yet,  as  shown  in  figure  13, 
children (persons under 18) remain more at risk of poverty or social exclusion87 
than  the  overall  population  with  a  rate  of  27.1%  as  against  23.5%.  Only  in  a 
minority of countries (CY, DK, FI, SI and SE) are children less at risk than the total 
population.  Besides,  the  last  two decades  have  seen  in a  number  of  countries a 
shift  in  poverty  and  social  exclusion  risks  away  from  the  elderly  to  younger 
generations and children88.  

Figure 13. At risk of poverty or social exclusion rate in the EU for children and total 
population, 2010 

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 89(Note: Data for LV refer to 2011) 

87 This indicator is the headline indicator to monitor the Europe 2020 social inclusion target. It reflects the 
share of the population living in a household which is at risk of poverty (a household whose income is below 
60% of the national equivalised median income), living in a household with very low work intensity (i.e. on 
average, working age members of the household work less than 20% of their full work potential over the 
year)  and/or  living  in  a  severely  materially  deprived  household.  A  household  is  confronted  with  severe 
material deprivation if it cannot afford at least 4 items out of the following: 1) face unexpected expenses;,, 2) 
one week's annual holiday away from home; 3) pay for arrears; 4) a meal with meat, chicken, or fish every 
second day; 5) keep the home adequately warm; 6) a washing machine; 7) a colour TV; 8) a telephone; 9) a 
car for personal use.  
88 "Child poverty trends can also be affected by relative income gains and poverty trends in other population 
groups.  OECD  (2008)  shows  that  in  many  countries  the  main  burden  of  poverty has  shifted  from  the 
elderly to children since the mid-1980s", OECD, Doing Better for Families, 2011, p. 177.  

89 Unless  specified  otherwise,  EU-SILC  (EU  Statistics  on  Income  and  Living  Conditions)  figures  were 
collected in 2010, which is the year mentioned in the title of the figures and tables. 2010 (t) refers to income 
and employment for 2009 (t-1), except for Ireland (12 months preceding the survey) and the UK (current 
income), while the information on living conditions and material deprivation refers to 2010.  

xxxviii 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
Annex 9. Child poverty 

The  at-risk-of-poverty  rate  among  children  (defined  as  the  proportion  of 
children  living  in  households  with  an  income  lower  than  60%  of  the  median 
national  income)  varies  importantly  across  Member  States,  from  10.9%  in  DK, 
11.4% in FI and 12.6% in SI to 26.6% in LV, 26.8% in BG, and 31.3% in RO (as 
against  an  EU  average  of  20.5%).  The  composition  of  the  household  in  which 
children live and the labour market situation of parents are key factors affecting 
child  poverty:  children  facing  the  highest  risk  of  poverty  are  those  growing  up 
with a lone parent90 (40.2% of them are at risk of poverty in the EU) or in a large 
household consisting of two adults and at least three dependent children (26.5% 
of them are at risk of poverty, as against 14.6 % of children in households with 
two adults and two children).  

Children living in households with very low work intensity are also particularly 
vulnerable,  with  a  risk  of  poverty  rate  of  68.8%91.  Other  groups  of  children 
particularly  exposed  to  the  risk  of  poverty  include  children  from  households 
with migrant background, Roma children, street and homeless children. Children 
living in a migrant household (where at least one parent is born abroad) face a 
poverty risk of at least 30%, which is two to five times higher than the risk faced 
by children whose parents are born in the country of residence92. 

10.5  %  of  children  in  the  EU  are  at  persistent  risk  of  poverty  (e.g.  live  in  a 
household  with  an  equivalised  disposable  income  below  the  at-risk-of-poverty 
threshold in the current year and in at least two of the preceding three years), as 
against 8.8% of the overall population93.  

Indicators  of  material  deprivation  among  children  provide  a  broader, 
complementary  vision  of  children's  well-being  and  living  conditions94.  On 
average  5.9%  of  households  in  the  EU  cannot  afford  new  clothes  for  their 
children  with  as  much  as  35%  in  BG,  25.2%  in  RO  and  24.5%  in  LV.  34.5%  of 
children  in  BG  cannot  afford  to  eat  fresh  fruits  and  vegetables  once  a  day.  The 
situation is similar if not that acute in RO (23.8%), HU (17.2%) and LV (15.4%). 
In some countries almost one in every five children does not have in their home a 
suitable place to study or do homework because the household cannot afford it 
(BG 19.7%, RO 24.8%). Almost one in every two households in BG cannot afford 
leisure activities for their children such as swimming, playing an instrument or 
participating in a youth organisation, while this is the case for 12% in the whole 
EU.  

In  2010  about  8%  of  all  dependent  children  were  growing  up  in  a  single  parent  household,  of 

90  
which 90% were headed by women. Source: Eurostat, LFS 
91     The links between labour market participation, household structure and child poverty are discussed in section 

1.3.1 

2009 figures 

Child  Poverty  and  Well-Being  in  the  EU,  Current  Status  and  Way  Forward,  Social  Protection 

92  
Committee, European Commission, 2008 
93  
94   This section is based on the outcomes of the 2009 EU-SILC module which entailed specific questions focused 
on the material deprivation of children. In-depth analytical work of the 2009 material deprivation EU-SILC 
information  (core  survey  and  thematic  module)  is  being  carried  out  by  the  EU-funded  research  network 
“Second Network for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC2)”. The results of this work have been discussed 
with the SPC Indicators Sub-Group and the Eurostat Task-Force on material deprivation. The objective is to 
come  up  with  a  revised  indicator  for  the  total  population  and  a  new  indicator  addressing  the  specific 
deprivation of children. 

xxxix 

 
 
                                                        
Annex 9. Child poverty 

These data do not yet fully reflect the impact of the economic crisis95, which has 
strongly  affected  households  with  children  even  in  countries  where  the  overall 
risk of poverty or social exclusion was stable. There are already indications that 
the percentage of children living in poverty or social exclusion is on the rise in a 
number of countries. Their share has risen by more than 1 percentage point (pp) 
in several Member States, namely AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FR, LV, LT, HU and 
SK  between  2009  and  2010.  The  highest  increases  have  been  observed  in 
countries with already high levels of child poverty and social exclusion such as IE 
(6.2pp),  LV  (4pp),  ES  (3.6pp)  and  LT  (3.3pp)  but  also  in  Member  States  with 
levels below the EU average such as BE (2.7pp). The living standards of children 
have  especially  deteriorated  as  the  share  of  children  living  in  severe  material 
deprivation has increased by as much as 6.2pp in LV, 4.9pp in LT, 3.7pp in EE and 
3.3pp in HU. Among them, single parent households have been particularly hit: 
the risk of poverty or social exclusion for single adults with dependent children 
has increased by 9pp in IE and LT, by 7pp in ES and 6pp in IT, 5pp in FR, 4pp in 
SE and SK and 3pp in DK between 2008 and 2010.  

95  

"Third Report on the Social Impact of the Economic Crisis and on-going Fiscal Consolidation 2011", Social 
Protection Committee, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=758  

xl 

 
 
                                                        
Annex 10. Simulations 

The  following  steps  were  used  to  estimate  some  basic  parameters  of  the 
different options. The results are given in the table below. 

1)  Technical assistance (TA): 

a.  at the initiative of the Commission: for all options the Commission 
will  need  some  technical  assistance  at  its  own  initiative  even  if 
only to organise control, review and mutual learning meetings and 
eventually evaluations. This is set here at 0.35%, the same level as 
for the cohesion policy proposal. 

b.  at  the  initiative  of  the  Member  States:    under  the  baseline  this  is 
zero as there is no such TA in the current scheme. In options 2 and 
3,  the  technical  assistance  is  set  at  4%,  the  same  level  as  for  the 
cohesion policy proposal.  

2)  Use of the resources:  

a.  In all options the allocation for administration and logistics is set 

at 6%. 

b.  Accompanying measures are only eligible under the options 2 and 
3, not under the baseline (option 1). Their value is set at a level of 
maximum 5% of the value of the in-kind support distributed.  This 
level is based on experience of the stakeholders consulted.  

c.  Option  3  foresees  a  broad  scope  of  support  under  which  in  kind 
support in the area of housing and child poverty are eligible. There 
is  a  priori  no  indication  which  share  of  the  available  resources 
might  go  to  these  forms  of  support.  The  assumption  here  is  that 
the  Member  States  currently  using  the  MDP  will  continue  to 
distribute  food  aid  whereas  the  Member  States  not  using  it  will 
concentrate  on  one  of  the  new  areas  of  activity.  In  this  context  a 
repartition key of 80/10/10 was assumed. 

3)  Applying these considerations yields estimates of the resources available. 
4)  This  is  used  to  estimate  the  levels  of  in-kind  support  for  each  option, 

using the following figures:  

a.  The weighted average cost of food distributed by the food banks is 
2.04€/kg  and  on  average  a  kilo  of  food  corresponds  to  2  meals 
(Source:  FEBA).  This  yields  an  estimate  of  just  over  €1  per  meal.  
This  figure  is  similar  to  the  estimate  provided  by  the  Restos  du 
Coeur of just under €1 per meal. 

b.  The average price of housing support pack under the housing First 

scheme is 200€ per pack (Source: FEANTSA).  

c.  The average price of a child poverty support pack is 75€ per pack 

(Source: FEANTSA)  

5)  The  volumes  of  in-kind  support  are  used  to  estimate  the  number  of 

beneficiaries under each option.  

a.  The weighted average amount of food aid received by a participant 

is 76.6 kg per person (source: FEBA); 

b.  Housing  support  or  child  poverty  support  packs  benefit  one 

person each. 

xli 

 
 
 
Annex 10. Simulations 

6)  Carbon  saving  is  estimated  using  the  ratio  of  0.5  kg  CO2  per  kg  of  food 
distributed (Sources:  French Federation of Food Banks and Fareshare) 

7)  These  calculations  assume  that  all 

items  are  purchased  by  the 
programme.  They  do  not  take  into  account  the  multiplier  effect  of  the 
scheme which is expected to be in the range of 2 to 4. 

1 - Total Budget 

TA-MS 
TA-COM 
available 

2 - Use of the resources 

Accompanying measures 
Administration/logistics 

  Domain of action 

3 – Resource allocations  

Accompanying measures 
Administration/logistics 
Food Aid 
  Homelessness 
Child poverty 

4 - In kind support 
Food distributed  

  Meals 
  Housing packs 

Child poverty packs 

5 - Number of beneficiaries 

Food aid 
  Housing 

Child poverty 

  Total 

Option 1  Option 2 
2,500 

2,500 

Options 3  unit 

2,500   € millions 

-   
9 
2,491 

100 
9 
2,391 

100   € millions 
9   € millions 
2,391   € millions 

-   
6% 

5% 
6%   

5%  % of in kind support 
6%     % of in kind support 

Food assistance 
Homelessness 
Child poverty 

100% 
-   
-   

100% 
-   
-   

80%  % of in kind support 
10%  % of in kind support 
10%  % of in kind support 

-   
141 
                    2,350 
-   
-   

114 
129   
2,148 
-   
-   

114  € millions 
129     € millions 
                1,718   € millions 
215   € millions 
215   € millions 

1,152 
2,304 
-   
-   

2.15 
-   
-   
2.15 

1,053 
2,106 
-   
-   

1.96 
-   
-   
1.96 

842  

thousand tons 
1,685   million meals 
1,074  
2,864 

thousand packs 
thousand packs 

1.57   Millions per year 
153   Thousands per year 
409   Thousands per year 
2.13   Millions per year 

6 - Carbon saving for food component 

576 

   527 

421  Thousand tons CO2 

7 – Size of target groups 

Severely Materially Deprived People 

40 

40 

  Homeless persons 

Children suffering from material deprivation 

8 – Coverage of the Target Groups 

Severely Materially Deprived People 

  Homeless persons 

Children suffering from material deprivation 

5 

5 

40  Million 
4  Million 
6  Million 

5  % per year 
4  % per year 
7  % per year 

xlii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 11. EU actions on food losses/food waste/food surpluses 

According to an EU funded study96 the total amount of food waste97 in EU 27 is 
about 90 million tonnes per year or 180 kg per capita per year - agricultural food 
waste  and  fish  discards  not  included.  The  study  underlines  that  food  is  lost  or 
wasted  at  all  stages  of  the  food  chain  and  that  it  occurs  for  various  reasons, 
predominantly sector specific. Efforts to reduce food losses/waste should focus 
on  all  the  levels  of  the  food  supply  chain,  targeting  in  particular  the  different 
causes per sector.  

The Commission decided to address food waste in the context of:  

1.  The  EU  2020  Resource  Efficiency  Flagship98 where  the  need  to 
maximise  the  efficient  use  of  scarce  natural  resources  has  been 
stressed  and  the  subsequent  Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient 
Europe99 announcing  that  the  Commission  will  further  assess  how 
best to limit food waste throughout the food supply chain;  

2.  The  EU  Parliament  report  on 

food  waste 100  demanding  the 
Commission to take practical measures towards halving food waste by 
2025;  

3.  The Commission's Communication on "Sustainable food" foreseen for 

November 2013 where food waste will be a key issue.  

The  Commission  is  currently  in  the  process  of  defining  the  most  appropriate 
actions  at  EU  level  to  complement  the  actions  carried  out  at  national  and  local 
level. The Commission is therefore consulting experts, stakeholders and Member 
States  on  how  to  minimise  food  waste  without  compromising  food  safety 
(including how to make maximum use of food surpluses). In the autumn 2012 a 
new EU research project (FP7) on food waste will be kicked off, that will develop 
a  standardised  definition,  standardised  methodologies  to  calculate  food  waste, 
and set up an EU multi stakeholder platform. 

96 Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27, BIO IS, October 2010  
97 According to the definition of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) food loss  occur  
at production, post-harvest and processing stages in the food supply chain; and food waste at the 
end of the food chain (relating to retailers’ and consumers’ behaviour) 
98 "A resource efficient Europe – Flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy" COM(2011)21 – 
26/1/2011. 
99 COM(2011)571 final adopted by the Commission on 20th September 2011 
100 Own-initiative report by Salvatore Caronna (S&D, IT) "Avoiding food waste: how to improve 
the efficiency of the food chain in the EU" - Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – 
adopted on 19th January 2012. 

xliii