7 FOOD AID FOR DEPRIVED PEOPLE
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
(30962)
13721/09
—
| Special Report No. 6/2009 concerning the European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed together with the Commission's replies
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 30 September 2009
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 20 October 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 18
|
| To be discussed in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
7.1 In order to avoid a build-up of public intervention
stocks, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has over the years
contained provisions for the subsidised sale of produce. These
include a measure[17]
introduced in 1987, enabling intervention stocks to be supplied
free of charge to designated charitable organisations for distribution
to the most deprived persons in the Community (including children
from poor families, the elderly and the homeless) in those Member
States which choose to participate.
7.2 As we noted in our Report[18]
of 29 October 2008, the Commission believes that this measure
has contributed to achieving two of the objectives in the Treaty
— to stabilise markets, and to ensure that supplies reach
consumers at reasonable prices — and has been a reliable
supply of food for the most deprived, particularly in the light
of the successive enlargements which have substantially increased
the Community's needy population, and the recent rise in food
prices. However, it has also noted that the various reforms of
the CAP have greatly reduced the scope and level of intervention
stocks, leading to a significantly increased reliance on market
purchases. This in turn led it to propose in September 2008 the
changes set out in our Report (following which the document was
debated in European Committee A on 20 January 2009).
The current document
7.3 The current document is a report by the European
Court of Auditors, which examined whether the intended aims of
the scheme are still valid in the context of the evolving market
and social situation; the adequacy of the means made available,
and of the systems applied, for measuring the scheme's impact
on the beneficiaries in terms of value, quantity and variety of
products provided and distributed; and the administrative and
management procedures used for the implementation of the annual
plans. It covers the management of the scheme between 2006-2008
by the Commission and four Member States — Spain, France,
Italy and Poland — which account for more than 72% of the
annual budget (which amounted to €307 million in 2008 and
€500 million in 2009).
7.4 The Court comments that the scheme was designed
to alleviate, not eliminate, poverty, and that the resources available
have had only a limited impact, offering on average the equivalent
of one meal per month to its beneficiaries, making it necessary
to target the aid and improve coordination with social policy.
It adds that the existing provisions related to intervention stocks
have constrained the variety of products which can be distributed,
whilst the procedures applied in the distribution chain have resulted
in different treatment of final beneficiaries in terms of quantity
of food provided per person. The Court also found that the administration
of the scheme is particularly difficult since it is managed by
thousands of charitable organisations, mainly staffed by volunteers,
dealing with an unstable target population; that monitoring and
reporting systems need to be improved at both Commission and Member
State levels, as well as the methodology for allocating the financial
resources between Member States; and that the tendering procedures
differ considerably between Member States and have not ensured
equal access to all operators and the broadest competition. The
Court also commented on the tenuous link between this programme
and agricultural expenditure since the reduction in intervention
stock levels, and notes that a number of Member States consider
that it should not be financed from the European Agricultural
Guarantee Fund (EAGF).
7.5 The Court notes the Commission's recent proposal
to reform the scheme, which it says would go some way towards
addressing certain of the weaknesses highlighted, and says that,
since there is support within the Council and European Parliament
for its continuation, it has made a number of recommendations,
as follows:
- that the Commission should consider whether it
is appropriate to continue financing such a measure through the
CAP;
- that the Commission should encourage Member States
to embed the programme in the social policy framework and improve
coordination and cooperation with others involved in that area;
- that, in order to increase the impact of the
measure, the Commission should define workable priorities to select
recipients of aid, taking due account of difficulty of applying
delivery mechanisms involving voluntary bodies and the volatile
target groups involved;
- that the restriction of foods for distribution
to products eligible for intervention storage should be reconsidered
in order to increase the diversity and nutritional value of the
food supplied;
- that, in order to increase the impact of the
aid, and to ensure more equal treatment of recipients, the Commission
should consider introducing a level of standardisation consistent
with the characteristics of the charitable organisations and of
the target group;
- that the Commission should encourage Member States
to develop specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed
objectives for the implementation of the programme as well as
to define performance indicators, and should review the reporting
system;
- that, in order to increase the openness of competition
and to ensure that the best market prices are achieved, the Commission
should better define the legal basis as well as implementing rules
for the procurement of food products for deprived persons.
7.6 In its response, the Commission argues that the
food distribution plans adopted under the scheme have successfully
contributed to the food security of the most deprived persons
and to ensuring an alternative outlet for intervention stocks.
It also points out that, although the intervention system has
been extensively reformed, it still remains for cereals, skimmed
milk powder and butter, and that stocks have recently started
to rebuild due to market circumstances. It notes the support for
the scheme from a majority of Member States and the European Parliament,
which has also expressed its wish that the scheme should remain
financed by the EAGF. It suggests that overall the scheme is managed
satisfactorily, but accepts that further improvements are possible:
and it points out that the methodology to calculate Member State
contributions has already been revised to take account of relative
wealth levels, and that its proposal last autumn to reform the
scheme addresses several of the Court's suggestions.
The Government's view
7.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 20 October 2009,
the Minister of State (Farming and the Environment) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Fitzpatrick) says
that the Government welcomes the Court's examination, and that
a number of the issues raised in the report reflect the Government's
own view — expressed previously in connection with the amendments
proposed by the Commission last year — that the current
scheme does not represent good value for money, and that it is
inappropriate that it should continue to be financed through the
CAP budget, particularly as it has increasingly been used for
the purchase of goods on the open market. The Minister adds that,
despite the Commission's contention that its proposals to reform
the scheme address a number of the Court's suggestions, the Government
remains unconvinced as to the merits or appropriateness of that
proposal, considering that the Community should act only where
there are clear additional benefits, and that social measures
are a matter for Member States more properly and efficiently delivered
through domestic social programmes.
Conclusion
7.8 The issues raised by this scheme have already
been drawn to the attention of the House by virtue of our Report
of 29 October 2008 on the amendments which the Commission has
proposed, and these were subsequently debated in European Committee
A. Nevertheless, the comments made by the European Court of Auditors
in this Special Report provide an interesting backdrop to that
earlier proposal and to some of the UK's reservations on the scheme.
Consequently, although we see no need to withhold clearance, we
think it right that this latest document should also be drawn
to the attention of the House.
17 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 (OJ No. L 352,
15.12.87, p.1.) This measure was subsequently repealed, and integrated
into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ No. L 299, 16.11.07,
p.1.) which consolidated into one instrument existing sectoral
legislation under the CAP. Back
18
(29981) 13195/08: see HC 16-xxxiii (2007-08), chapter 1 (29 October
2008). Back
|
