84 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 9.11.2010 ANNEX 3.1 RESULTS OF TRANSACTION TESTING FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 2007 Total transactions (of which): 148 80 13 241 204 196 Advances 000000 Interim/Final payments (in % and numbers of transactions) Transactions not affected by error Transactions affected by error (in % and numbers of transactions) Analysis by type of error Non-quantifiable errors Most likely error rate for closures: < 2% 2 % to 5 % > 5% 148 80 13 241 204 196 68% 69% 32% 31% 32 % 36% 68% 64% 20% 36% 2% 3% 78% 61% X Quantifiable errors Occurrence Accuracy EN 76 % 24 % 31 % {113} {35} {11} 69 % 31 % 36 % {55} {25} {9} 54 % 46 % 67 % {7} {6} {4} 73 % 27 % 36 % {175} {66} {24} 13 % {3} 0% {0} 87 % {21} 13 % {2} 6% {1} 81 % {13} 2009 33 % {2} 2008 SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF THE SAMPLE RESULTS OF TESTING ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTIONS AFFECTED BY ERROR EAGF 69 % {24} RD 64 % {16} SANCO, ENV, MARE Total 64 % {42} Eligibility 100 % {2} 17 % {7} 0% 0% {0} {0} 2% {1} 81 % {34} ESTIMATED IMPACT OF QUANTIFIABLE ERRORS X X comprising: EN 9.11.2010 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion 85 ANNEX 3.2 RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF SYSTEMS FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Assessment of selected supervisory and control systems — EAGF Member State (Paying agency) Lithuania Latvia Slovakia Cyprus Italy (AGREA) Malta Greece Spain (Basque region) Overall assessment Scheme IACS related Expenditure (million euro) Administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of databases On-the-spot inspection methodology, selection, execution, quality control and reporting of individual results Implementation and control of GAEC/Cross-compliance SAPS 183,5 2 SAPS 69,5 SAPS 179,7 1, 2, 4, 5 A, B, C a SAPS 24,6 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 A, D SPS 409,0 6, 7, 9 A b, c SPS 2,7 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 A SPS 2 077,1 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 A, E, F, D b, d SPS 30,0 1, 5, 6, 7, 13 Legend: Effective Partially effective Not effective 1 Non exclusion of ineligible features/ eligible area overstated in the LPIS 2 Insufficient audit trail 3 The claim registration procedure is not fully reliable 4 No update of eligible areas in the LPIS on the basis of new orthophotos and or OTS 5 No (retroactive) cross-checks on the basis of updated reference parcel information 6 Weaknesses in the determination of eligible area for permanent pasture and common pasture land 7 Incorrect application of penalties 8 The ceiling for SAPS was overshot by around 1,44 % and no reduction coefficient was applied 9 SPS payments are done before solving the anomalies detected 10 Special entitlements were allocated contrary to EU legislation to farmers having eligible hectares at their disposal in the year of introduction of SPS 11 Serious delays in establishing LPIS-GIS which affects the quality of cross checks 12 Undue application of 5 % tolerance at the level of administrative cross checks 13 The administrative procedures to determine the entitlements to be surrendered to the national reserve have no legal basis A Measurement tolerances are applied incorrectly / not applied B No data available on control and inspection reports for 2008 claim year C No offsetting of area surpluses and area deficits found within one crop group D The on the spot inspections carried out by ECA showed large material differences E Beneficiaries claiming poor pasture areas have not been inspected F Quality of on the spot inspections found to be inadequate leading to unreliable results a Incomplete/ not sufficiently detailed inspection reports on GAEC controls b Insufficient national GAEC requirements for grassland and poor pasture c GAEC controls are done using only the remote sensing d Cross-compliance sanctions applied incorrectly 
SV 9.11.2010 Europeiskaunionensofficiellatidning 85 BILAGA 3.2 RESULTAT AV GRANSKNINGEN AV SYSTEMEN AVSEENDE JORDBRUK OCH NATURRESURSER Bedömning av utvalda system för övervakning och kontroll – EGFJ System IACS-relate­ rade utgifter i (miljoner euro) Administrativa förfaran­ den och kontroller som ska garantera korrekta utbetalningar inbegripet kvalitet på databaser Metoder för inspektio­ ner på plats, urval, ge­ nomförande, kvalitets­ kontroll och rappor­ tering av enskilda resul­ tat Tillämpning och kont­ roll av normer för god jordbrukshävd och goda miljöförhållanden/tvär­ villkor SAPS 183,5 2 SAPS 69,5 SAPS 179,7 1, 2, 4, 5 A, B, C a SAPS 24,6 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 A, D SPS 409,0 6, 7, 9 A b, c SPS 2,7 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 A SPS 2 077,1 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 A, E, F, D b, d SPS 30,0 1, 5, 6, 7, 13 Medlemsstat (utbetalande organ) Litauen Lettland Slovakien Cypern Italien (AGREA) Malta Grekland Spanien (Baskien) Teckenförklaring Samlad bedömning Ändamålsenligt Delvis ändamålsenligt Ej ändamålsenligt 1 Icke stödberättigande delar har inte uteslutits/den stödberättigande arealen har redovisats för högt i systemet för identifiering av jordbruksskiften.