The effectiveness of the Integrated Administration and Control System in the EU

Vásáry Viktória

EU member states are obliged to report to the EU Commission any irregular and unlawful payments (over 4,000 euro) from Common Agricultural Policy funds. Based on the most recently completed special report by the EU Audit Office, of all payments judged as irregular between 1971 and 2002, 75% of the total to be repaid is still outstanding. The current question is to what extent is this situation exacerbated by the payment of direct support, which since the 1992 reform constitutes the predominant element in the support structure.

It was determined during a detailed examination of the various forms of support that member states rarely make such reports with respect to support falling under the umbrella of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). This means that misuse of support falling within IACS’s sphere of authority is insignificant in comparison to the scale of other, irregular support payments. Despite this, or perhaps rather in the knowledge of this fact, the question arises: how effective is IACS, in which countries and in which areas are the weak points and how can these be explained?

Based on three years of data utilised in this study it can be stated that in certain cases it is the country-specific analysis that is relevant and not the combined failure rate at EU-15 level. This is partly due to the fact that in some cases, member states conducted exceptionally extensive control checks (in comparison to other states), modifying that country’s failure rate to such an extent that it produced significant distortion at EU-15 level. It can also be explained in part by the fact that failure rate values show significant variance year on year and country by country, in particular with regard to livestock premiums, where the following problems presented themselves:
- Submissions overstating the actual per head figures.
- Overestimation of the extent of pasturage when calculating animal density.
- Absence of the farm register.
- Management inadequacies.
- Negligent handling of compulsory livestock records, cattle licences and tagging.
- Submissions based on larger areas than are actually being cultivated, that is, on ineligible areas.
- Indication of plants that attract higher levels of support.

The EU-15 average ratio of erroneous submissions in the years examined – in relation to total submissions – fluctuated around 2-3-3% for land-based support and 1-2-1.5% for livestock premiums. In relation to the submissions examined, the ratios were 20-25-38% for land-based support and 10-14-12% for livestock premiums.

Full article