Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/doc/http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4dfd1fc9-ca7b-11e4-ab4d-01aa75ed71a1.0006.01@2015-02-28/en

Contents

1. Preamble
2. pt_1
3. pt_2
4. ANNEX
5. ANNEX I ALLOCATIONS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR MEASURE 226
6. ANNEX II LIST OF OPERATIONS REVIEWED

Axis A coherent group of measures with specific goals contributing to one or more of the objectives of the support for rural development. In the period 2007–13, measure 226 was part of Axis 2, which aims at improving the environment and the countryside. CAP common agricultural policy CMEF common monitoring and evaluation framework EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The EAFRD is the main financial instrument of the rural development (RD) policy. The EAFRD is, along with the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), one of the two financial instruments of the CAP. EFFIS European Forest Fire Information System. A database set up by the European Commission that contains information relevant to monitor the occurrence and impact of forest fires at EU level. The data serves to produce an annual report on forest fires in Europe and neighbouring countries. EU European Union Forest An area of land spanning more than 0,5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 %, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use1. Measure The basic unit of programme management, consisting of a set of similar operations financed through a precisely defined budget. Measure 226 EAFRD support for restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions2. Natural disaster A naturally occurring event of a biotic or abiotic nature that leads to important disturbances in forest structures, eventually causing important environmental and economic damage. Need An opportunity or difficulty relevant for concerned groups or regions, which the public intervention aims to address. Operation Project selected according to criteria and implemented by the beneficiary, including a number of actions related to the objectives of the support. Other wooded land Land of more than 0,5 hectares not classified as a forest. It has a canopy cover of 5 to 10 %, or a cover of trees shrubs and bushes above 10 %. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use. RD rural development RDP Rural development programme. A document prepared by a Member State or region, and approved by the Commission, to plan the implementation of the RD policy. European forests are threatened by fire, which is generally due to intentional or negligent human action, and by natural disasters including abiotic (e.g. windstorms, droughts, floods, avalanches, etc.) or biotic (pests, diseases) calamities. The Court examined whether the EAFRD support for restoring forestry potential in forests damaged by natural disasters and fire and for introducing preventive actions (‘measure 226’) had been well managed and achieved intended results in a cost-effective way. This measure was available in the programming period 2007–13 under Axis 2, which targeted the sustainable use of forestry land as a way to improve the environment and the countryside in the EU. At the end of 2012 the total EAFRD support programmed for measure 226 amounted to 1,55 billion euro for the period 2007–13. The Court’s audit covered the Commission and selected Member States (Austria, France (Aquitaine), Italy (Basilicata), Spain (Andalusia) and Slovakia). These Member States together accounted for more than 85 % of the total expenditure declared as of 31 December 2012. Most of the support (80 %) was for preventive actions, mainly against fire. The Court concludes that the support was not sufficiently well managed and that the Commission and the Member States cannot demonstrate that the intended results were achieved in a cost-effective way. Preventive actions were not sufficiently targeted. The Court noted that while measure 226 targets forests at medium to high risk of fire, there is no common EU definition or criteria to identify them. Selection procedures in the Member States were deficient in different respects, lacking explicit selection criteria or an effective evaluation of proposed actions or neglecting some areas of risk. The environmental objectives were insufficiently prioritised at the selection stage and sometimes overlooked during the implementation. The audit found actions which were not appropriate to achieve the objectives of the measure. Even though by their nature (firebreaks, thinning, clearing, etc.) many of the co-financed actions reviewed generally contributed to the objectives of the support, the Court found cases not related to natural disasters or fire, but motivated by other economic or environmental objectives. For some types of the implemented operations key eligibility requirements could not be verified due to lack of documentation. The Court also found cases of forest roads used for the economic exploitation of the forests where the particular benefit for fire prevention was not demonstrated. The high density of the roads constructed could also have negative environmental effects. The cost-effectiveness of the actions financed was not adequately ensured. The Court found cases where the ceiling of public support was frequently modified without justification, where standard costs in a region were significantly higher than in another for similar actions and where manual work was prioritised rather than using machines, resulting in higher costs. There were also situations presenting risks of excessive public support when already completed projects were selected, where beneficiaries were able to finance operations on their own and where support went to agricultural parcels. Finally, the monitoring tools in place did not allow the Commission and the Member States to adequately assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the measure. In particular, the performance indicators established in the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) were insufficient and the evaluations available were of limited usefulness. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the preventive actions because it had not been measured. The weaknesses identified are likely to persist in the period 2014–20 since the new proposed monitoring tools have not improved the monitoring framework for this specific support. With regard to the above conclusions and taking into account that the audited support is maintained in the programming period 2014–20, the Court recommends that:

Member States should:

pt_1

(a) select the prevention actions based on explicit criteria aligned with the needs and after a thorough and documented evaluation process;

(b) enhance the environmental protective impact of the support by prioritising the actions in the most environmentally valuable forests such as Natura 2000 forest areas;

(c) ensure that only actions linked to natural disasters or fire are supported;

(d) establish a control system which can ensure effective verification of compliance with the terms under which support is granted, and maintenance of appropriate documents or information;

(e) pay greater attention to environmental considerations related to the actions supported, in particular by establishing appropriate safeguards to prevent environmental counter-effects;

(f) ensure that the standard costs established for the actions supported are reasonable;

(g) justify the ceiling for support — and any change to it — on the basis of the costs normally incurred by the beneficiaries;

(h) require beneficiaries to clearly demonstrate their need for the support under measure 226;

(i) report on the effects of the actions carried out in terms of reduction of the number of fires/or natural disasters and of the area damaged.

The Commission should

pt_2

(a) verify, during the approval of the Member States’ RDPs concerning the period 2014–20, that the needs for preventive actions in the forest areas where public support is envisaged are adequately described and justified;

(b) set out common basic criteria to differentiate forest areas to be classified as low, medium and high fire risk;

(c) verify that the Member States have established an appropriate control system;

(d) clarify requirements for the actions to be supported under measure 226 to ensure that they contribute significantly to the prevention of fire and natural disasters, in particular when they are part of a profitable economic activity and as such could also be financed under Axis 1;

(e) improve its monitoring of the measure to ensure that the Member States implement it in line with the specific objectives set.

In the EU the total area of forests and other wooded land accounts for about 180 million hectares, which is about 42,4 % of the total EU land area and more than the land area used for agricultural purposes (about 174 million hectares). Forests are multifunctional, serving economic, social and environmental purposes. The socioeconomic importance of forests is high: wood production and processing contributes to rural development and provides millions of jobs, often in medium and small rural enterprises. For several decades, environmental forest functions have attracted increasing attention mainly in relation to the protection of biodiversity and, more recently, in the context of climate change. Forests play an important protective function:

(a) Forests protect settlements and infrastructure. Many mountain areas in Europe would be uninhabitable without forests that protect roads, railways, cultivated areas and even entire settlements from damage or destruction through landslides, mudflows, rock falls and avalanches.

(b) Forests protect soil. Forest areas play an important role in preserving landscapes and soil fertility. Forests prevent soil erosion and desertification especially in mountainous or semi-arid areas, mostly by limiting run-off and lowering wind speed.

(c) Forests regulate freshwater supplies. Forests play a major role in the storage, purification and release of water to surface water bodies and subsurface aquifers. Their purification role includes breaking down or absorbing most air pollutants carried by rain.

(d) Forests conserve biodiversity. Forests are a key component of European nature and they are home to the largest number of vertebrates on the continent. Thousands of species of insects and invertebrates as well as many plants are also confined to forest habitats.

(e) Forests as sinks of carbon. Forests are an essential link in the global carbon cycle because of their capacity to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and to store it in their biomass and soil.

European forests are threatened by fire, which is generally due to intentional or negligent human action, and by natural disasters including abiotic (windstorms, droughts, floods, avalanches, etc.) or biotic (pests, diseases) calamities. In the period 1983–2012 fires burned on average 480000 ha of forest area in the EU every year. The average burnt area was significantly higher during the period 1983–92 than in the following decades, during which the improvement of forest fire fighting means in the Member States played an important role (see Graph 1). Source:Joint report of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Directorate-General for the Environment, Forest Fires in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, 2012. Over 95 % of these fires are caused by humans, either deliberately or by negligence (for example, fires associated with agricultural practices, such as straw or shrub burning, forest debris burning or pasture renewals, cigarettes). About 85 % of the total area burned by forest fires is located in the Mediterranean region and Portugal. Recent forest fires resulted in large burnt areas in Portugal in 2003 and 2005, in Greece in 2007 and in Spain in 2006. Seriously affected forests face a major challenge to recover pre-fire condition, in particular with regard to biodiversity. The environmental impact of forest fires is not limited to loss of biodiversity and damage to ecosystems. They also result in emissions of particles and gases (including CO2) into the atmosphere, outflow of mineral nutrients, destruction of the organic layer of the soil and changes in the water infiltration rates in the soil, which make burnt areas prone to erosion, soil loss and landslides. Recurrent forest fires combined with droughts may also lead to desertification. In the period from 1950 to 2009 wind storms were the most damaging causes in Europe. Storm losses exceeded 50 % of all abiotic types of forest-related damage. The most destructive storms in the most recent period happened in 1999, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The storms of 1999 (‘Lothar’ and ‘Martin’) brought the most catastrophic damage to France and central Europe with nearly 200 million m³ of damaged wood. In January 2005 the storm ‘Gudrun’ swept through southern Sweden and produced 66 million m³ of storm-damaged wood (roughly equivalent to the yearly timber harvest in Sweden). In January 2007, the storm ‘Kyrill’ caused extensive damage in central Europe, including a forest loss of 45 million m³ (of which 16 million m³ in Germany) of standing timber. In January 2009 the storm ‘Klaus’ levelled enormous areas of plantation forest in France (37 million m³, mainly maritime pine), Spain and Italy. Besides the negative environmental impacts, there are social (deaths) and economic (depressed timber prices) consequences linked to releasing on to the market such huge quantities of damaged timber. More frequent and severe droughts affect large areas of Europe, causing water scarcity and increased pressure on water resources. On the other hand, several major flood disasters occurred in Europe in the last few years. Such disasters also damage forests, although to a more limited extent than fire, storms and biotic agents like insects (e.g. bark beetles), diseases or wildlife and uncontrolled grazing. The EU has a long history of contributing to forest protection, in particular with regard to fire prevention. In the period 1986 to 2002 EU forests benefited from specific regulations devoted to forest fire prevention and since 2000 forest protection has been included in the rural development (RD)policy. The RD policy for the programming period 2007–13 focused on three core objectives to be achieved by a series of measures grouped, for each objective, in a ‘thematic axis’ financially supported through the EAFRD

:

(a) improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector (Axis 1);

(b) improving the environment and the countryside (Axis 2);

(c) improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy (Axis 3).

In the period 2007–13, one forestry-specific measure (measure 122: ‘Improvement of the economic value of forests’) was covered by Axis 1 and various others by Axis 2. In the period 2007–13 EAFRD support for restoring forest damaged by natural disasters and fire, as well as for introducing preventive actions, was available through measure 226 ‘Restoring forestry potential and introducing preventive actions’ under Axis 2. This measure has been included in 58 rural development programmes (RDPs) drawn up by 16 Member States. At the end of 2012 the total EAFRD support planned for actions under measure 226 was around 1,55 billion euro. EAFRD support covers a part of the total public support paid to beneficiaries by the national administration responsible. The EAFRD co-financing rate is set in each RDP. The total public support may cover up to 100 % of the eligible costs incurred by the beneficiaries of the measure. Source: European Commission. EAFRD payments under the measure amounted to around 860 million euro as of 31 December 2012. Most of the support (80 %) was for preventive actions, mainly fire prevention activities (see Annex I for details on the allocation of financial resources for measure 226). Public financial support is available both for private and public forests, since for measure 226 the EU regulations do not exclude any ownership types. RD support for preventive actions against fire may be granted only for forests classified by the Member States as high or medium forest fire risk according to their forest protection plans and may cover the establishment of protective infrastructures (e.g. forest paths, tracks, water supply points, cleared and felled areas and firebreaks), preventive forestry practices (e.g. vegetation control, thinning, diversification of vegetation structure) and setting up or improvement of fixed forest fire monitoring facilities. In the case of forest firebreaks, eligible costs may comprise, beyond the cost of establishment, subsequent maintenance costs for the area concerned. For other preventive actions, as well as for actions aimed at restoring forestry potential in forests damaged by a natural disaster or fire, the EU regulations require that they should be disaster-related, which means linked to the occurrence or the risk of the occurrence of a natural disaster or fire, but do not define any specific eligibility conditions, such as a minimum level of risk. The rural development support for ‘restoring forestry potential and introducing preventive actions’ is under shared management between the Commission and the Member States. Member States develop RDPs at national or regional levels. Once approved by the Commission, these programmes are implemented by the Member States. A ‘common monitoring and evaluation framework’ has been set up, based on common indicators, annual implementation reports by the Member States and different types of evaluations. The main objective of the audit was to assess whether the EAFRD support measure for restoring forestry potential and introducing preventive actions has been well managed and whether the Commission and the Member States can demonstrate that the support achieved its intended objectives in a cost-effective way. The audit focused on the following issues:

(a) Has the support appropriately targeted the needs for prevention of natural disaster and fire risks?

(b) Were the operations financed appropriate to achieve the objectives of the measure?

(c) Were the operations financed cost-effective?

(d) Are the monitoring tools adequate to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the measure?

The audit covered both the Commission and selected Member States. At the level of the Commission the audit work covered the design of the measure and the Commission management activities, including the approval of the RDPs submitted by the Member States and the monitoring of the implementation of the measure. At the level of the Member States, the audit included visits to Austria, France (Aquitaine), Italy (Basilicata), Slovakia and Spain (Andalusia). These Member States together accounted for more than 85 % of the total declared expenditure for measure 226 as of 31 December 2012. The audit work comprised a review of RDPs, national or regional legislation and administrative procedures as well as interviews with the responsible managing authorities in the Member States visited. In addition 68 operations supported under measure 226 were audited, 45 of them on the spot, to verify the effects of the different types of eligible actions carried out in the forest areas concerned (see Annex II for details). Adequate targeting of the preventive actions requires that:

the Commission has an overview of the natural disaster and fire risks when assessing the RDPs submitted by the Member States;

the selection process at the Member State level is aligned with the needs identified in the RDPs;

as a result, funding coincides with the areas of risk.

Until it expired in 2001, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on the protection of the Community’s forests against fire set criteria for classifying forest areas as low, medium or high fire risk. That regulation required the Member States to establish lists of areas classified by the degree of fire risk and to send them to the Commission for approval. The Commission decision establishing the lists of the forest areas of high and medium fire risk in Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal has not been updated since 2001 and consequently Member States which entered the Union in 2004 and after were not part of this exercise. After the expiration of the abovementioned regulation, the provisions of Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 stated that preventive actions against fires must relate to forests classified by the Member States as high or medium forest fire risk according to their forest protection plans. In the absence of common criteria for assessing fire risks, Member States carry out their fire risk analysis based on their own methodology. As a result, the criteria used for the classification of forest areas as medium or high risk vary across the EU. The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) is a database set up by the Commission that contains information relevant to monitoring the occurrence and impact of forest fires at EU level. The data serves to produce an annual report on forest fires in Europe and neighbouring countries. It is however not used to assess the Member States’ fire risk analyses when approving the RDPs. The Commission does not issue specific guidelines on fire risk classification in order to promote best practices and ensure the comparability and reliability of Member States’ fire risk analyses. The example of Slovakia illustrates the potential discrepancies that can be identified using the data available in EFFIS. According to the national system for the classification of forest areas according to risk of fire, 1,8 million out of the total 2 million ha of forest land is classified as medium or high fire risk area in the country. However, neither the historical forest fire figures nor the EFFIS database (see Graph 3) supports such a high percentage of medium and high fire risk areas in the country. The Slovak authorities did not provide the Court’s auditors with their method for classification or the criteria used for the classification of forest areas under the various levels of fire risk. The audit found that the Commission does not have comprehensive information on the historical evolution of the occurrence of natural disasters and catastrophic events (except for fires). No analysis is available to the Commission on the scale of the damage to forest areas caused by other abiotic (e.g. droughts, wind storms or avalanches) or biotic calamities (pest and diseases). In its communication on ‘A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forest–based sector’ the Commission acknowledges as strategic orientations (a) the ‘set-up of the Forest Information System of Europe by collecting harmonised Europe-wide information’ and ‘integrating diverse information systems (e.g. EFFIS) and data platforms …’, (b) the need to ‘align EU forest information’, (c) the need to ‘improve, make comparable and share forest information and monitoring …’ and (d) the need to ‘develop modules e.g. on forests and natural disturbances like fires and pests’. The Commission does not have comprehensive information on the other types of natural disasters affecting forests and consequently does not have a full overview of the needs for disaster prevention when assessing plans for measure 226 proposed in the RDPs submitted by the Member States. Managing authorities should set priorities for acting in the most valuable forest areas (taking into account the multifunctional nature of forests, as described in paragraphs 1 and 2) for which potential significant risks have been previously identified. This should be reflected in the selection procedure. In Italy (Basilicata) the funds available to implement the measure were first shared out among associations of municipalities in proportion to the number of forest workers to be employed in the municipalities that made up each association. After the breakdown of the funds, the associations submitted projects and aid applications corresponding to the funds already allocated to each of them. The projects and aid applications then went through a formal selection and ranking process, but this had no practical effect because all the applications were accepted with a confirmation of the amounts of aid already assigned. Furthermore, concerning the selection of the forest areas supported, there was no documentation setting out the reasons for the choices made or making reference to particular levels of risk or other technical priority objectives (for example: work planned with specific deadlines in a municipal forest management plan, the need to realise or complete operations already performed in other municipal forests). In Spain (Andalusia) several selection criteria were defined for measure 226. A selection procedure was applied and documented in the case of competitive calls for investment proposals. In contrast, for actions directly promoted by the regional authorities, representing more than three quarters of the spending, criteria did not prioritise actions on the basis of a specific risk analysis nor was the selection procedure documented. Austria has put in place a forestry assistance system. The area under the responsibility of a local district forestry office is divided among professional forest advisers, who are responsible for the direct contact with forest owners and managers. The advisers decide whether the forest managers’ proposed forestry actions can be supported. This decision is not based on explicit selection criteria or on a written evaluation of the forestry action proposed (assessment of the technical specifications, importance, urgency, impact on environment etc.). Acting in the most environmentally valuable EU forest areas such as Natura 2000 sites was not always given priority (see Box 1). It is estimated that the Natura 2000 network of forest areas covers about 20 % of the total EU forest area. The aim of the Natura 2000 network of areas is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Although a significant percentage of the Slovak forests are classified as protected forests (including Natura 2000) which have a high environmental value, they were not prioritised during the selection process, limiting the potential environmental impact of measure 226. In France (Aquitaine), restoring actions were designed to maximise the surface of forest supported after a storm, without prioritising forests of higher environmental value. Also, the regional rules made no allowance for the environmental aspects of removing wood and clearing and restoring damaged areas. For example, they did not require ecological studies in sensitive areas at project level and did not forbid certain operations that affect soil protection such as the stripping of large swathes by bulldozer. Funding should be aligned with the identified risks and directed to the areas which are most in need. In Slovakia, the allocation of financial support under measure 226 was not in line with the main potential forest-damaging factors. For example, although wind-related calamities were the most significant factor in forest damage in the country (80 %), followed by snow (12 %) and drought with heat stroke (7 %), the highest proportion of public support under measure 226 was used for forest fire prevention actions (61 %), mainly to finance the construction and maintenance of forest roads which were primarily used for the exploitation of the forests without justifying the particular link to fire prevention. In Austria, despite the existence of detailed forest management plans and hazard zone plans, the ongoing assessment of the forest protection risk performed by the Austrian authorities has played a limited role in targeting aid. There was no clear correlation between the basic forest risk and budget spending. For instance, the Bundesland Salzburg, whose 376000 ha of forest rank on the very low to medium risk scale, was allocated slightly more funds than Kärnten, whose 584000 ha of forest rank medium to very high. The audit found a disproportionately high allocation of support to certain public bodies (regional or municipal authorities) for operations in publicly owned forests and also a concentration of funds in costly labour-intensive activities. In Italy (Basilicata), measure 226 was applied exclusively to municipally owned forests, which constitute only 30 % of the total forest area of the region. The fact that a forest area is municipally owned does not imply that the area in question is at a greater risk of fire. In fact, in 2012, the forest area affected by fire in Basilicata had increased by 93 % as compared to 2011, and by 231 % as compared to the 2009–11 period. These fires had mostly taken place in areas of privately owned forests. The limitation of the support to municipal forests was due to the intention to ensure employment for the forest workers recruited every year for seasonal work in municipally owned forests (see paragraph 31). In Spain (Andalusia), while more than 70 % of forests are in private hands, the expenditure under the measure for public forest areas was about three times more than for private ones. Neither the RDP nor the ex ante evaluation provided information that would have justified the unequal distribution of financial resources, whereas the explanation given by the Spanish authorities about the lack of profitability of the private forest sector indicates a need for public support. Furthermore in the same region, in the case of the competitive calls for investment proposals in 2008, the public support granted under measure 226 for clearing of bushes and shrub-covered areas represented six times more financial resources than the total amount used in the region for other specific actions financed for fire prevention such as the creation and maintenance of firebreaks, or the creation and maintenance of water points. While the clearing of bushes and shrub-covered areas has a positive effect in coping with fire spread, they are costly labour-intensive activities. The Spanish authorities recognised that clearance and thinning had been used in many areas where controlled burns would have been economically and ecologically advisable. They justified their choice by the lack of skilled personnel and the existence of legal (detailed administrative burn orders are required) and social obstacles, but they plan to develop the use of controlled burns in the near future. Support under measure 226 had to be granted only for restoring forestry potential in forests damaged by natural disasters and fire and for introducing preventive actions. Due to their nature (firebreaks, thinning, clearing etc.) many of the co-financed actions reviewed during the audit generally contributed to the objectives of the support. Some projects were particularly relevant because of their high protective nature (see Box 2). Restoration and preventive actions under measure 226 should be disaster-related, meaning that they should be linked to the occurrence or the risk of a natural disaster. Damage caused by insect/pests or diseases as such is not considered as natural disaster. For that reason, actions related to normal pest management should not be eligible for funding unless the outbreak is a consequence of a natural disaster. In Spain (Andalusia) and Slovakia, preventive actions related to pest management were supported under measure 226, even though they were not linked to any natural disaster. They were considered eligible as there was already a pest outbreak in the area. However, the limited scale of the outbreak did not justify the existence of a risk of natural disaster. In Austria several projects were financed to prevent avalanches in forests under protection status by performing horizontal felling of trees, which also significantly contributes to protecting water springs that feed into nearby municipal water systems. In Austria all actions initially launched under measures 224, ‘Natura 2000 payments’, and 225, ‘Forest-environment payments’, were actually financed under measure 226. However, measures 224 and 225 concern actions aimed at maintaining and improving environmental functions of forest areas and stands not linked to disaster prevention, whilst measure 226 only provides for disaster-related support. Similarly, some planting projects, initially submitted under measure 122 intended for ‘improving the economic value of forest’, were later approved under measure 226, without a clear indication of their links to any natural disasters. Support under measure 226 in Andalusia included actions aimed at maintaining and improving the ecosystems of wooded areas by increasing the number of tree species in a particular zone where there was no deterioration or loss of tree cover as a consequence of natural disaster or fire. Therefore, in Andalusia, the primary objective of those actions was not related to the objective of measure 226. Wet timber storage is a technique that helps maintain the quality of the wood after felling and thus optimises the sale price. Stocking timber facilities were supported in Austria to prevent bark beetle outbreaks in pine tree areas affected by the occurrence of natural disasters (wind storms). The audit found that such facilities, which were built long after the occurrence of the disaster, were actually used to stock beech wood, which is only marginally affected by bark beetles. Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 provides that, as a general principle of control, Member States shall establish a control system that ensures that all necessary checks are carried out for effective verification of compliance with the terms under which support is granted. Article 33(2) of the same regulation provides that a sufficient audit trail shall be maintained. The Court audit found the systemic weaknesses set out in Box 3. Because of those weaknesses, it was not possible to verify compliance with the terms under which the support was granted due to a lack of documentation or information supporting key eligibility requirements. Measure 226 supported the construction and maintenance of forest roads and tracks in France (Aquitaine), Austria, Slovakia and Spain (Andalusia) which were used for extracting wood and other forest products (cork barks) from productive private forests (see Box 4). The creation and maintenance of forest roads used mainly for the extraction of wood and other forest products is not the purpose of measure 226. For these operations the EAFRD provides appropriate support under Axis I (measures 122 and 125) which aims to improve the competitiveness of the forestry sector. While forest roads are necessary to fight fires, measure 226 should avoid supporting projects which are mainly motivated by economic objectives, without having a particular benefit for fire prevention. Several audited projects (5 out of the 8 audited involving roads in privately owned forests) did not include a justification of benefits in relation to the fire prevention objectives, so as to ensure an effective contribution of the support to environmental objectives. In Aquitaine (France), an important eligibility criterion to be verified for all aid applications was the compliance with the minimum damage threshold fixed by the regional authorities (minimum 40 %). The audit revealed that there was no administrative information system to identify the forest stands affected by the 1999 wind storms and the level of damage. As a result it was not possible to verify the accuracy of the applicants’ declarations. In Slovakia, the documentation in the files of the public procurement process was incomplete as only the winning bid was kept in the beneficiary file, but not the losing bids. This results in a loss of evidence on the effective evaluation of the bids. In Austria, for instance, a project concerned the construction of a forest road, giving access to 25 ha of forests. The main purpose of the project was to open up the forest for wood extraction by its owners. Arguments put forth in the project files include the mobilisation of unused forest reserves, increasing the profitability of timber mobilisation and supplying local sawmills. The conditions for supporting the creation and maintenance of forest roads under measure 226 should be made clear, so as to ensure an effective contribution of the support to environmental objectives. The EU regulations did not define any minimum requirements, such as limitation of access, a density not jeopardising the safeguard of ecosystems or compulsory certification of projects by local fire services, to ensure adequate protection of the environment. According to the ‘Feasibility study on means of combating forest dieback in the European Union’, a technical report prepared for DG Environment (December 2007), ‘road construction may contribute to forest protection, or may do the opposite … Networks of forest roads provide access to forest fires and therefore help forest fire fighting. In contradiction forest roads can lead to an increased fragmentation of forests, de-stabilising ecosystem functions and therefore leading to an increased vulnerability of forests’. In Slovakia, for forest roads covered by the operations financed under measure 226, the RDP approved by the Commission provided for an optimum density of 20–25 m/ha. The audit found that a disproportionately high density of forest roads was actually supported, which may have a negative impact on the ecological status of the forests concerned. For example, one private beneficiary applied in 2008 for four projects related to the creation of new forest roads in its forest holding. Before the infrastructural investment, the length of forest roads in its forest holding was marginal. As a result of the investment, approximately 40 km of new forest roads were constructed resulting in forest road density of 36 m/ha, which is higher than the optimum density of 20–25 m/ha indicated in the RDP. Another beneficiary built 3619 m of forest roads in its forest holding of 24,96 ha, achieving a forest road density of 145 m/ha, which is very high compared either to the Slovak average (approximately 10,6 m/ha) or to the optimum density of 20–25 m/ha indicated in the RDP. Article 24(2)(d) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards control procedures provides that administrative checks on applications for support shall include verification of the reasonableness of the costs submitted, which should be evaluated using a suitable evaluation system, such as reference costs, a comparison of different offers or an evaluation committee. Deficiencies in the procedures put in place in Austria, Slovakia and Italy (Basilicata) affected the reasonableness of the costs of the actions supported (see Box 5). Example 1 In Austria, the type of interventions and their ceilings (fixed upper limits or lump sums per ha or tree) were defined every year. However, there was no justification or apparent logic for the establishment of certain ceilings which were significantly modified from one year to another: In Kärnten, the ceiling for afforestation of deciduous forest (> 75 % broadleaves) was initially fixed at 1800 euro/ha in 2008, while from 2009 it increased to 2500 euro/ha. In 2010 the support for afforestation was up to 6000 euro/ha. Also in Kärnten, there was an increase of the ceiling for thinning from 300 euro/ha in 2008 to 400 euro/ha in 2009 and in the case of lump sum payments concerning protection of forests from 420 euro/ha to 560 euro/ha. In Niederösterreich, the public support for thinning was 350 euro/ha from 2007 to 2009. In 2010 it was increased to a maximum amount of 750 euro/ha (if supported by invoices) or 500 euro/ha in case of lump sum payments. Both of these amounts were again reduced to 350 euro/ha as from 2011. Example 2 The standard costs set out in the Basilicata region were significantly higher than in other neighbouring Italian regions for the same or similar preventive actions as illustrated below. The standard cost of manual clearing work for creating 1,2 metre-wide paths in Basilicata was 7,81 euro per metre; while the standard cost of a comparable activity — creation of ‘a 1 metre-wide path in any type of terrain’ — in the Puglia region was only 3,58 euro per metre. Restoration of service paths Regarding restoration of service paths, the standard working time was 35 minutes per metre and the standard cost was 6,89 euro per metre in Basilicata. For a similar activity in the Puglia region, the standard working time was 9 minutes (including 3 minutes with a strimmer) and the standard cost was 2,15 euro per metre. A similar activity was performed in the Campania region at a cost of 2,77 euro per metre. In the Basilicata region the activities could have been carried out more economically and efficiently by making greater use of machines (as in other regions) rather than manpower. Because of the more extensive use of manual labour, in various cases the standard costs set out in the Basilicata region are much higher than in other regions for the same or similar activities (see Box 6). In Slovakia all projects are subject to public procurement rules which should ensure the efficiency in the use of public funds. The auditors noted that there was no evaluation of the reasonableness of any of the investment costs claimed by the beneficiaries even though the projects were financed 100 % from public funds. The only formal check was to verify that the threshold established in the public procurement process was not exceeded by the expenditure claimed by the applicant. Maintenance of forest roads The total cost for maintaining 7253,82 metres of forest road in Basilicata amounted to 337665,32 euro at a standard cost of 46,55 euro per metre. For a similar forest road with the same length in Tuscany the maintenance work performed using both manual and mechanical means would cost only 37828,67 euro as the standard cost in that region is 5,21 euro per metre. In Andalusia, some actions, representing around 13,5 % of the total contractual price for the performance of forestry works in a project concerning public forests, had not been carried out. On the other hand, some other actions had been carried out by the contractor at a much higher price than that planned in the technical project. As the total approved cost of the project had not been exceeded, the beneficiary had not been required to justify either the non-execution of certain actions or the increased cost of others. In France, for certain restoration and maintenance interventions, beneficiaries are required to submit only one offer with their application. Presenting several offers would contribute to ensuring that the most economically advantageous offer is selected. Giving support in cases where the need of the beneficiary is not clearly demonstrated (deadweight) undermines the efficiency of the support. In Austria projects already completed were financed under the measure. The national implementing regulation entered into force in the beginning of 2008 and consequently the first award decisions were only issued in April 2008. However, potential beneficiaries were allowed and encouraged to submit applications for support from January 2007 and to execute the projects at their own risk. In total, 3671 support claims were submitted in 2007 out of which at least 444 projects were completed before the date of the award decision. Regarding the applications submitted from 2008 onwards, at least 147 projects were executed prior to the grant approval, even though the implementing regulation in force since 2008 stated that the project-related costs for projects under measure 226 are only eligible as from the date of the support decision. In these situations, the beneficiaries’ initial decisions to carry out the projects without the aid called into question their need to receive public support. In Slovakia two beneficiaries audited, receiving support for the construction of forest roads, confirmed during the on-the-spot audit visit that they would have carried out the actions even without the public funding. In Spain predominantly agricultural land (pastures with trees, shrub pasture and grazing land), which had been declared as ‘eligible hectares’ for the purpose of activating payment entitlementsand identified as such in the Spanish land parcel identification system, was also eligible for the purpose of granting forestry support under measure 226. Some beneficiaries received support for clearing of shrub and bushes under measure 226, as a preventive action against fire, while they were already required to maintain their parcel as agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition (i.e. clear from shrubs and bushes). Assessing whether measure 226 has been effective requires the use of appropriate monitoring and evaluation tools, enabling the identification of necessary improvements to maximise the impact of the EU support. For the period 2007–13, a ‘common monitoring and evaluation framework’ was drawn up in cooperation between the Commission and the Member States. The progress, efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of the RDPs in relation to their objectives is measured by means of indicators relating to the baseline situation, financial execution, outputs, results and impact of the programmes. The Commission issued guidelines setting the following common output indicators related to the implementation of measure 226: (a) number of preventive/restoration actions; (b)supported areas of damaged forest; and (c) total volume of investments.In addition to these output indicators, the following result indicator was defined in the CMEF for measure 226: area under successful land management contributing to the improvement of biodiversity water and soil quality, and to mitigating climate change.’ Although most of the actions financed are of a preventive nature, the output indicator set for such actions (number of preventive actions) was insufficient. The output indicator defined as ‘supported areas of damaged forest’ only refers to forest actually damaged by disasters, so this indicator is relevant only for the restoration actions. As regards the result indicator relating to the improvement of biodiversity, water and soil quality and the mitigation of climate change, the audit found that none of the visited managing authorities were able to attribute the result of each action to one or the other aspect of the indicator and, in fact, some reported the same total area as the result achieved for each aspect of the indicator. The result indicator set for the new programming period 2014–20 (number of agricultural holdings participating in risk management schemes) does not represent an improvement to evaluate the effectiveness of the support so the weaknesses identified are likely to persist. The rural development programmes are evaluated as to their preparation, implementation and completion (ex ante, mid-term and ex post evaluations). Whilst the ex ante evaluation aims at optimising the allocation of budgetary resources and improving programming quality, the mid-term and ex post evaluations examine the degree of utilisation of resources, the effectiveness and efficiency of the programming of the EAFRD, its socioeconomic impact and its impact on the Union priorities. Regarding measure 226, the four evaluation questions defined in the CMEF for the period 2007–13 relate to the extent to which the supported actions have contributed to: (a) restoring forestry potential (damaged forests); (b) maintenance of forests (preventive actions); (c) increasing the sustainable management of forestry land; and (d) improving the environment. The audit found that, with regard to measure 226, the information obtained from the mid-term evaluations was disparate and incomplete. For example, for Basilicata and Aquitaine the evaluators did not provide answers to any of the questions, in contrast with Andalusia. However, although all questions were answered for Andalusia, the replies were not always useful to assess the progress of implementation because the same figures (number of operations and number of ha) were provided both for the questions relating to the maintenance of forests and the sustainable management of forestry land. Fire damage is concentrated in a few Member States in the Mediterranean region. Statistics at EU level show a moderate decrease in total area burnt in recent years (see paragraph 4). However the trend at Member State level is not the same (see Graph 3). Source: EFFIS. Most of the EAFRD support under measure 226 aimed at introducing preventive actions, particularly for forest fire prevention (see Annex I). Although 80 % of the EU funds are used for financing preventive operations, the effectiveness of such operations is not measured. Accordingly, the Commission has no statistics to confirm the effectiveness of the fire prevention actions implemented by the Member States under measure 226 and has not requested any geographical information on the areas where the activities supported have been implemented. In the period 2007–13 the EU support under RD measure 226 aimed at restoring forestry potential in forests damaged by natural disasters and fire, and introducing appropriate preventive actions. Most of the support (80 %) was for preventive actions, mainly against fire. The Court has examined whether the support has been well managed and whether the Commission and the Member States can demonstrate that the support achieved its intended objectives in a cost-effective way. A sample of 68 actions was audited, 45 of them on the spot with the final beneficiary. The Court concludes that the support was not sufficiently well managed and that the Commission and the Member States cannot demonstrate that the intended results were achieved in a cost-effective way. With particular regard to the fact that such a support is available in the current programming period 2014–20, the Court makes the recommendations set out below: The Court noted that while measure 226 targets forests at medium to high risk of fire, there is no common EU definition or criteria to identify them. Selection procedures in the Member States were deficient in different respects, lacking explicit selection criteria or an effective evaluation of proposed actions or neglecting some areas of risk. The environmental objectives were insufficiently prioritised at the selection stage and sometimes overlooked during the implementation (see paragraphs 21 to 42). The Member States should:

Select the prevention actions based on explicit criteria aligned with the needs and after a thorough and documented evaluation process.

Enhance the environmental protective impact of the support by prioritising the actions in the environmentally most valuable forests such as Natura 2000 forest areas.

The Commission should:

Verify, during the approval of the Member States’ RDPs concerning the period 2014–2020, that the needs for preventive actions in the forest areas where public support is envisaged are adequately described and justified.

Set out common basic criteria to differentiate forest areas to be classified as low, medium and high fire risk.

Even though, due to their nature (firebreaks, thinning, clearing, etc.), many of the co-financed actions reviewed generally contributed to the objectives of the support, the Court found cases not related to natural disasters or fire, but motivated by other economic or environmental objectives. For some types of the implemented operations key eligibility requirements could not be verified due to lack of documentation. The Court also found cases of forest roads used for the economic exploitation of the forests where the particular benefit for fire prevention was not demonstrated. The high density of the roads constructed could also have negative environmental effects (see paragraphs 43 to 54). The Member States should:

Ensure that only actions linked to natural disasters or fire are supported and

Establish a control system which can ensure effective verification of compliance with the terms under which support is granted, and maintenance of appropriate documents or information.

Pay greater attention to environmental considerations related to the actions supported, in particular by establishing appropriate safeguards to prevent environmental counter-effects.

The Commission should:

Verify that the Member States have established such a system.

Clarify requirements for the actions to be supported under measure 226 to ensure that they contribute significantly to the prevention of fire and natural disasters, in particular when they are part of a profitable economic activity and as such could also be financed under Axis 1.

Regarding the costs of the actions supported, the Court found cases where the ceiling of public support was frequently modified without justification, where standard costs in a region were significantly higher than in another for similar actions and where manual work was prioritised rather than using machines, resulting in higher costs. There were also situations presenting risks of excessive public support when already completed projects were selected, where beneficiaries were able to finance operations on their own and where support went to agricultural parcels (see paragraphs 55 to 64). The Member States should:

Ensure that the standard costs established for the actions supported are reasonable.

Justify the ceiling for support — and any change to it — on the basis of the costs normally incurred by the beneficiaries.

Require beneficiaries to clearly demonstrate their need for the support under measure 226.

In particular, the performance indicators established in the CMEF were insufficient and the evaluations available were of limited usefulness. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the preventive actions because it had not been measured (see paragraphs 65 to 74). The weaknesses identified are likely to persist in the period 2014–20 since the new proposed monitoring tools have not improved the monitoring framework for this specific support. The Members States should:

Report on the effects of the actions carried out in terms of reduction of the number of fires/or natural disasters and of the area damaged.

The Commission should:

Improve its monitoring of the measure to ensure that the Member States implement it in line with the specific objectives set.

This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mrs Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 17 December 2014. For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira President

ANNEX

ANNEX I ALLOCATIONS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR MEASURE 226

(euro) Public expenditure planned in the period 2007–13 (first RDPs) Financial execution Public expenditure as of 31.12.2012 Number of actions supported Financial execution EAFRD (for NEW applications in 2007–13 programming period) Member States EAFRD contribution measure 226 Total public expenditure measure 226 EAFRD payments Total public payments Prevention Restoration Prevention — payments Restoration — payments Total EAFRD payments Bulgaria 24224 29541 544 664 37 29 244 300 544 Czech Republic 22379 28017 11068 13835 47 264 3189 7879 11068 Denmark 3692 6712 3792 6895 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 11005 14239 11082 13852 717 308 9112 1970 11082 Greece 136082 179996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spain 468573 789950 342441 543633 18666 1223 275944 25486 301430 France 257364 467498 154768 283910 455 5656 7153 40010 47163 Italy 233655 431691 143722 252069 1716 261 131141 9725 140866 Cyprus 2250 4500 1336 2671 86 30 962 373 1336 Latvia 12974 16218 1676 2104 13 248 1091 584 1675 Lithuania 12000 15000 8510 10637 28 167 6215 2295 8510 Hungary 8251 10736 1084 1392 0 4105 0 1084 1084 Austria 40934 81932 40959 83018 12683 3842 28866 8180 37046 Poland 112000 140000 31121 38901 74 169 19424 5158 24582 Portugal 119313 146077 19012 21502 237 70 14684 4328 19012 Slovakia 88281 111354 89844 113396 179 186 57104 32740 89844 TOTAL 1552977 2473463 860958 1388480 34938 16558 555129 140113 695242

ANNEX II LIST OF OPERATIONS REVIEWED

Member State Operation Number Nature of operation Type of intervention Total public expenditure (euro) Total EAFRD contribution (euro) On-the-spot visit ES 1 Prevention Firebreaks, fire plan 4464,30 3348,23 Yes ES 2 Prevention Thinning, lane maintenance 641768,30 482437,85 Yes ES 3 Restoration Clearing, reforestation 13013,61 9782,18 Yes ES 4 Restoration Clearing, thinning 499443,40 374582,55 Yes ES 5 Restoration Thinning, lane maintenance 951688,65 713766,49 Yes ES 6 Prevention Preventive actions 51488,59 38871,67 No ES 7 Prevention and restoration Thinning, clearing, forest track maintenance, densification 2262163,20 1741226,39 No ES 8 Prevention and restoration Thinning, clearing, reforestation, lane construction and maintenance 1038834,14 784763,11 No ES 9 Prevention Thinning, clearing 1750955,95 1313216,96 No ES 10 Restoration Thinning, clearing 60236,19 45177,14 No ES 11 Restoration Clearing 209115,15 165631,35 No ES 12 Prevention Firebreak construction and maintenance 278,78 225,00 No ES 13 Prevention Firebreaks, fire plan 34323,01 33750,00 No ES 14 Restoration Forest road and lane maintenance 297550,92 276095,98 No ES 15 Prevention and Restoration Thinning, clearing and reforestation 1712450,99 1314688,73 No FR 1 Risk prevention Cleaning, restoration 5368,00 9760,00 No FR 2 Risk prevention Access 44791,12 81438,40 No FR 3 Risk prevention Infrastructure 140768,62 255942,96 Yes FR 4 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 113979,04 207234,62 Yes FR 5 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 178750,88 325001,60 Yes FR 6 Damage restoration Restoration 4121,85 7494,28 Yes FR 7 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 11035,20 20064,00 Yes FR 8 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 14331,68 26057,60 Yes FR 9 Damage restoration Cleaning 63490,90 115438,00 No FR 10 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 34342,00 62440,00 No FR 11 Damage restoration Cleaning, restoration 18182,15 33058,46 No IT 1 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 1192999,59 685974,76 Yes IT 2 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 1034691,15 594947,41 Yes IT 3 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 1042459,99 599414,50 Yes IT 4 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 816808,12 469664,67 Yes IT 5 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 407399,34 234254,62 Yes IT 6 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 394524,99 226851,87 Yes IT 7 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 405571,49 233203,61 Yes IT 8 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 1244483,70 715578,13 Yes IT 9 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 625927,12 359908,09 Yes IT 10 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 616179,62 354303,28 Yes IT 11 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 1378702,24 792753,79 Yes IT 12 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 706745,31 406378,55 Yes IT 13 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 1002850,95 576639,30 Yes IT 14 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 900440,30 517753,17 Yes IT 15 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 998533,36 574156,68 Yes IT 16 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 499266,68 287078,34 Yes IT 17 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks 608695,65 350000,00 Yes IT 18 Prevention Firebreaks, tracks, clearing 583960,24 335777,14 Yes AT 1 Restoration Clearing of forest after disaster 33800,00 16413,00 Yes AT 2 Prevention Thinning 5840,00 3041,00 Yes AT 3 Restoration Planting 9001,00 4371,00 Yes AT 4 Natura 2000 Environmentally valuable trees 5080,00 2646,00 Yes AT 5 Prevention Horizontal felling, cable extraction 29029,00 15118,00 Yes AT 6 Restoration Cable extraction 17058,00 8283,00 Yes AT 7 Restoration Cable extraction 18500,00 9008,00 Yes AT 8 Restoration Cable extraction 115883,00 56273,00 Yes AT 9 Prevention Cable extraction, preparation, planting, thinning 123698,00 61994,00 Yes AT 10 Prevention Cable extraction, preparation, planting, thinning 98538,00 48250,00 Yes AT 11 Prevention Control of bark beetle 684810,00 333434,00 No AT 12 Prevention Forest road 142415,00 69342,00 No AT 13 Prevention Repair of protection forest, prevention of avalanches, cable extraction, planting, etc. 128062,00 62250,00 No SK 1 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road, water reservoir, monitoring 503619,00 402895,00 Yes SK 2 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road 404885,00 222687,00 Yes SK 3 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road, water reservoir 903141,00 722513,00 Yes SK 4 Restoration Aerial liming and fertilisation 633904,00 507123,00 Yes SK 5 Restoration Reforestation 204132,00 163305,00 Yes SK 6 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road 778136,00 622509,00 Yes SK 7 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road 79689,00 63751,00 No SK 8 Prevention Cleaning and maintenance of firefighting strip 371433,00 297146,00 No SK 9 Prevention Infrastructure, forest road; other curative measures 504977,00 403982,00 No SK 10 Restoration Reforestation, forest road 1495292,00 1196234,00 No SK 11 Restoration Reforestation 153271,00 122617,00 No

Versions

1. 2015-02-28