This money returns to the EU budget because of non-compliance with EU rules or inadequate control procedures on agricultural expenditure. Member States are responsible for paying out and checking expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Commission is required to ensure that Member States have made correct use of the funds.
Main financial corrections
Under this latest decision, funds will be recovered from 15 Member States: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the UK.
Within this global figure of €57 million, the most significant individual correction is €20.04 million charged to France for weaknesses related to the allocation of entitlements.
Background
Member States are responsible for managing most CAP payments, mainly via their paying agencies. They are also in charge of controls, for example verifying the farmer's (incl. potato farmers) claims for direct payments. The Commission carries out over 100 audits every year, verifying that Member State controls and responses to shortcomings are sufficient, and has the power to claw back funds in arrears if the audits show that Member State management and control is not good enough to guarantee that EU funds have been spent properly.
For details on how the clearance of annual accounts system works, see MEMO/12/109 and the factsheet "Managing the agriculture budget wisely", available on the internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fin/clearance/factsheet_en.pdf.
Details of the individual corrections, by Member State and by sector, are given in the tables attached (annexes I and II).
Annex I : Conformity clearance of accounts of EAGF and EAFRD
Decision 45: Corrections by Member state (In Million €)
|
Sector and reason for correction
|
Amount of correction
|
Amount of financial impact of the correction1
|
|
Belgium
|
|
|
|
Livestock Premiums - correction proposed for payments for ineligible animals and incorrect application of sanctions
|
0.31
|
0.31
|
|
Czech Republic
|
|
|
|
Livestock Premiums - correction proposed for undue payments and non-application of reductions/exclusions for animals with irregularities
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Area aid - correction proposed for deficiencies related to the allocation of entitlements
|
0.40
|
0.40
|
|
|
Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
Area aid - correction proposed for weaknesses in on-the-spot checks
|
3.35
|
3.35
|
|
|
Spain
|
|
|
|
|
POSEI - correction proposed for not conclusive administrative controls and deficiencies in on-the-spot controls
|
0.56
|
0.56
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses in the administrative controls, on-the-spot checks and recoveries
|
0.05
|
0.05
|
|
|
Cross-compliance - correction proposed for partial and ineffective check of SMRs and lenient sanctioning system
|
2.71
|
2.71
|
|
|
Finland
|
|
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses in LPIS, administrative cross checks and in the on-the-spot checks
|
3.78
|
3.78
|
|
|
France
|
|
|
|
|
Milk Products - correction proposed for late on-the-spot checks for School milk scheme
|
0.64
|
0.64
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses related to the allocation of entitlements
|
20.04
|
20.04
|
|
|
UK
|
|
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses in LPIS and on-the-spot checks
|
3.18
|
3.18
|
|
|
Hungary
|
|
|
|
|
Rural Development - correction proposed for support paid to ineligible beneficiaries
|
0.38
|
0.38
|
|
|
Italy
|
|
|
|
|
Fruit and vegetables - correction proposed for weaknesses in administrative and accounting checks of producers and for lack of reconciling records held by producer organisations and processors with the accounts required under national law
|
2.33
|
1.40
|
|
|
Other corrections - correction proposed for lack of information on the undertaken recovery actions, for negligence in the recovery procedure and for non-reporting in Annex III
|
5.11
|
5.11
|
|
|
Latvia
|
|
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses in interpretation of obvious error and in the on-the-spot checks
|
0.02
|
0.02
|
|
|
Cross-compliance - correction proposed for a couple of GAEC not defined, incorrect calculation of sanction, deficiencies in checks for SMR4 and tolerance applied for SMR7
|
0.74
|
0.74
|
|
|
Poland
|
|
|
|
|
Rural Development – correction proposed for lack of selection criteria for evaluating the projects
|
5.84
|
5.84
|
|
|
Portugal
|
|
|
|
|
Rural Development – correction proposed for late on-the-spot checks
|
5.71
|
1.27
|
|
|
Sweden
|
|
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weaknesses in LPIS
|
1.47
|
1.47
|
|
|
Slovenia
|
|
|
|
|
Area Aids – correction proposed for weakness in measurement of the agricultural parcels
|
0.35
|
0.35
|
|
Annex II : Clearance of accounts of EAGF and EAFRD
Decision 45: Corrections by Sector (In Million €)
|
Sector
|
Amount of correction
|
Amount of financial impact of the correction2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Area aids / Arable crops
|
33.74
|
33.74
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fruit and vegetables
|
2.33
|
1.40
|
| |
|
|
|
Irregularities
|
5.11
|
5.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livestock premiums
|
0.86
|
0.86
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milk Products
|
0.64
|
0.64
|
| |
|
|
|
Rural development
|
14.28
|
9.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specific support (Art.68 of Reg.73/2009)
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
| |
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
56.96
|
51.59
|
