Mr. Janusz Wojciechowski:

I thank the committee for the invitation to present our main conclusions. Our two reports are interesting and important for the debate about the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, in the European Union. The first report is about the rural development programmes published last November. Good programming is key to the success and effectiveness of expenditure of the rural development fund. The fund comprises €100 billion for seven years or almost €15 billion per year. The direct payment aspect of the CAP accounts for approximately €40 billion per year while the market intervention fund accounts for approximately €4 billion. The rural development fund is approximately €14 billion. Altogether that is €58 billion per year.

The main beneficiaries of the rural development fund are France, Italy, Germany and Poland. Ireland receives approximately 2% of the total amount of approximately €2 billion over seven years.

The programming process is organised on a national level in the majority of member states but, in some member states, such as France, Germany, Spain and Italy, it is organised on a regional level. We examined 12 rural development programmes, RDPs, as shown on the map we have presented. The countries or regions audited included Poland, Romania, Greece, Austria, Campagna in Italy, La Rioja in Spain, and Ireland.

Our main audit questions were: is the programme focused on performance and reflected in the legislative framework? Do RDPs have potential contribution to better results? How was the programming process managed by the European Commission? The conclusions were that the programmes were too general, too long and complex with the programming process being too lengthy, and they were insufficiently focused on results. The data relating to the size of the programmes we audited are interesting and members can compare the size of the RDPs during the previous financial period of 2007-13 and the current period of 2014-20. The average size of the programme in the previous financial period was 459 pages, whereas it is 781 pages for the new financial period. Ireland is the only member state in which the RDP is not bigger than previously; it was one page shorter. Our opinion is that the Commission requires too much data and information. One of our conclusions is that RDPs are interesting for academic debates but they are not useful for farmers. The process of approval for programmes was lengthy, taking almost one year from the first draft being sent to the Commission to the final approval. In the Irish case, it was a little shorter but the process lasted almost two years in some member states.

The next slide outlines the problem we have legislating too late for the RDP. In the period 2007-13, everything was finished before the first year of the new financial perspective whereas for the period 2014-20, the regulations were adopted by the Commission in 2014. That was too late and the consequence was the lack of expenditure from the rural development fund, RDF. In 2010, after four years of the previous financial period, spending was 29%, whereas in the current financial period, it has only reached 21%. It was good for Ireland because in the previous financial perspective, Ireland was the leader. RDP spending in Ireland and Luxembourg was higher than 50% and no country or region had spending of less than 15% in 2010. Currently, we do not have a member state where the spending is higher than 50%. The two leaders in spending are Finland in first place and Ireland in second place. I offer congratulations because that is good information. However, in six member states, the absorption is less than 15%. This is the consequence of the programming process being too lengthy and being approved too late.

The next question is concerned with the report which I would like to present relating to the programming of the RDF.