1. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Workshop1: The possibilities for optimizing the processes of implementation of direct payments Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture

2. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Simplifying the procedure of submission of a single aid application

3. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies The rules adopted by a Member State for verification of the ownership of land parcels eligible for payments

4. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies T he reduction of administrative burdens through implementation of regulations concerning the measure “support for small farms”

5. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Additional solutions that may optimize aid application processing (1) 1. On-line application together with drawing the parcels on the webpage 2. Simplification of reporting requirements 3. Setting up a minimum amount for payment recoveries (now only maximum limit of 100 Euro) 4. Eligible area and individual net ceiling for each scheme instead of payment entitlements 5. Limitation of amendments in the future planned legislative work to the minimum necessary (e.g. payment entitlements) 6. Possibility of renunciation of the yearly applications’ submission and of the performance of administrative controls concerning applications where the data declared in the previous years have been not changed in the holding

6. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies 7. Reducing the minimum control percentage if the databases’ quality is enough 8. Limitation of the amount of information and documentation to be submitted by the applicant to a minimum 9. Information and data availability 10. Possibility of introduction of thresholds for controls to exempt applications with low value from being subject to control 11. Excluding applicants falling below certain limits from payment - such as the current limits of €100 or 1 hectare - at the time of the application 12. Unification of the criteria for the assessment of eligibility conditions for area applications (1st and 2nd Pillar) 13. Adjustment of the applications’ control conditions, depending on the declared area (e.g. 3 ha and 100 ha) Additional solutions that may optimize aid application processing (2)

7. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Conclusions from Workshop 1 -Elibility area and direct payments -LPIS -Administrative and on-the-spot checks (CC)

8. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Conclusions: 1.Aid application should be submitted yearly. 2.Simplified system for small farms 3. Obligatory information to the farmer about declaration from previous year, but no obligatory preprinted forms. Area 1 I. Submission of a single aid application

9. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 1 II. The highest administrative burden under SPS/SAPS Conclusions: Establishment of the system for payment entitlements On-line application – establishment of IT system

10. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 1 III. Simplifications Conclusions: 1. Reduction of paper documents submitted with the aid aplication – paper documents available in the farm during in-the-spot check 2. Possibility to take by the Member States decisions in a large spectrum of issues

11. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 1 IV. Active farmer Conclusions: 1. The new definition of „active farmer” connected with incoms from agriculture would be difficult to control. The only way – land eligibility.

12. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 1 V. Advanced payments Conclusions: 1.It should not be subject of authorisation of the European Commission 2.More flexibility in question of finishing controls before advanced payments

13. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 2 VI. LPIS Quality Assurrace Framework Conclusions: 1.The added value of the 2010 LPIS QA test is very small in relation to the costs incurred. 2.In almost all cases, the test results confirmed already known issues. 3.As a result of the test, in some cases, certain amendments were made to LPIS reference systems, that will improve test results in the following year, but without improving the quality of the geo- data. 4.Member states expect feedback from the EC on the test carried out in 2010. 5.It is expected that the LPIS QA tests results should receive from the EC also a kind of "acceptance" and then be translated into other activities related to the IACS / LPIS, such as the level of on the spot checks for example.

14. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 2 VI. LPIS Quality Assurrace Framework Conclusions: 5.LPIS QA is a new, independent and another additional to audits, quality verification - related action performed by EC. Member states believe that such tasks should be correlated as much as possible or even combined into a one single action. 6.Most of the Member States consider that the one common ETS- GIS tool would greatly simplify the process of performing this test and preparing the results afterwards. 7.However, above opinions are accompanied by concerns about the possible implementation of a one software that would meet the needs of so many different reference systems. 8.Therefore, an alternative to building a GIS software can be proposed – generation of any report by an automated service prepared by EC / JRC, based on the raw data (observations) submitted by member states.

15. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Area 3 VI. Administrative and on the spot checks Conclusions: 1. Effective controls of cross compliance standards and requirements require specialized knowledge of inspectors and providing necessary tools in the form of specialized databases, therefore, division of control tasks to the competent control authorities (official controls) is very reasonable. 2. On the other hand the involvement of too many specialized control units is too burdensome for the farmer. 3. Replacement of certain on the spot checks by administrative controls will limit the number of field inspections, duration of control and costs of the unit control (it is also associated with necessary databases). 4. Due to the complexity of a cross compliance inspections, it is necessary to provide the farmer by the Paying Agency simple, necessary and sufficient knowledge of the applicable standards and requirements.

16. 30. Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies Thank you for your attention!