1 Insights on cross-border ex ante controls – Polish experiences 27th Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Oviedo, April 2010

2 Polish proposals on ex-ante controls (Prague, 2009)  Unification of provisions concerning cooperation and mutual assistance in terms of ex ante controls  Harmonisation of the scope of ex ante controls carried out for the benefit of other PA within the framework of various schemes  List of institutions responsible in Member States for performing controls in particular CAP schemes  E-platform for exchange of information on controls including problems with mutual assistance Questionnaire results

3 The survey findings – Prague 2009  request for control sent to an improper institution in another Member State  request for control – no reply from another Member State  different understanding of ex ante controls  Round-up of identified problems:

4 State of play Analysis conducted in ARR for the years , March 2009 Questionnaire at the level of other paying agencies Summary of the Conference during the SCA meeting on 11 May meeting of the Council of the European Union AOB June 2009 DG AGRI Simplification Experts Group 9 June 2009 Presentation of the results on 25th Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies (Prague, April 2009)

5 Presidency summary (SCA, 11 May 2009) (1)  ‘The Conference suggested that when making policy decisions with implications for the CAP's implementation and control due attention should be given to the extensive experience of the paying agencies.’  ‘The Conference understood that control systems, at both EU and national level, should be continuously assessed to ensure the highest level of effectiveness and efficiency in delivering to farmers under various schemes and in protecting the financial interests of EU taxpayers.’ Source: document st09509_09

6  ‘The Conference believed that the conclusions and recommendations of the Conference of directors of EU paying agencies should be the subject of further discussion in Council as well as by the Commission.’ Source: document st09509_09 Presidency summary (SCA, 11 May 2009) (2)

7 ‘Ex ante controls Under the CAP, paying agencies have a duty to carry out some controls before payment, even in the territory of other MS. However, the EU legislation describes co- operation on carrying out these controls only in general terms.’ Presidency summary (Council, AOB, June 2009) (1)

8 Presidency summary (Council, AOB, June 2009) (2) ‘Based on questionnaires sent out by the ARR, a Polish paying agency, the following problems were identified :  refusal to carry out controls  lack of uniform cooperation rules for cross-border controls  ways of carrying out controls and application of the rules are not unified long-term feedback’ Source: document st11106_09 (25th conference of EU paying agencies (Prague, April 2009)- general conclusions

9 Aspects of CAP schemes for cross- border checks (1)  Processing the agricultural crop into another particular product (i.e. monitoring of the use of energy crops, industrial sugar processing, production refund for flax and hemp grown for fiber )  Procedure of confirming T5 control copies ( monitoring of the use of energy crops )

10 Aspects of CAP schemes for cross-border checks (2)  Distribution chain between different Member States/ intra- community movements of goods (distribution of food among the most deprived persons in the Community, private storage aid, intervention buy-in and sale, production refund for dried fodder, milk production quotas, export refunds)  Necessity of conducting a cross-check (most schemes)

11 Basis for cooperation  Community provisions in place require the cooperation between EU paying agencies. However of general nature insufficient to provide for powers to checks of operators unrelated to CAP payments (cross-checks)  Absence of relevant Community provisions on cross-border cooperation on ex-ante controls cause administrative difficulties in performing the controls.

12 Provisions on cooperation If Community provisions concerning international cooperation exist, the responsibility for cross border ex-ante controls must be clearly assigned to specific national bodies specified in national legislation - clear division of competence. Absence of specific Community provisions results in individual requests to paying agencies or other national bodies.

13 Necessity of forwarding the request to other services (often) Inability to provide an administrative assistance (in the worst cases) Identifying the competent service Difficulties in control at operators premises (refusal of entry) Absence of provisions - Consequences for requested Member State

14 Absence of provisions – consequences for requesting Member State Risk of late payment Long delay Risk of irregularities Risk of non-payment (in the worst cases) Burden for ex-post checks

15 Possible improvement HORIZONTAL APPROACH  introduction of a general provision imposing on paying agencies the requirement to provide mutual administrative assistance for other paying agencies (e.g Commission Regulation No 885/2006) – including the power for paying agencies to delegate competence to check transactions at operators (non-beneficiaries) or VERTICAL APPROACH  Introduction of relevant provisions imposing the requirement to provide administrative assistance to the implementing rules of particular sector regulations

16 Follow up? What is the statement of the European Commission on the issue?

17 Thank you for your attention Marcin Wardal Chief Specialist - Autonomous Post (ARR)