Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector
Modified by
Commission Regulation (EU) No 146/2010of 23 February 2010amending Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, 32010R0146, February 24, 2010
Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2011of 23 February 2011amending Regulations (EC) No 2095/2005, (EC) No 1557/2006, (EC) No 1741/2006, (EC) No 1850/2006, (EC) No 1359/2007, (EC) No 382/2008, (EC) No 436/2009, (EC) No 612/2009, (EC) No 1122/2009, (EC) No 1187/2009 and (EU) No 479/2010 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets and the direct support schemes for farmers, 32011R0173, February 24, 2011
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1368/2011of 21 December 2011amending Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the support schemes for farmers provided for in Titles IV and V thereof, and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, 32011R1368, December 22, 2011
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009of 30 November 2009laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sectorTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1., and in particular Articles 85x and 103za, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, and in particular Article 142 (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q) and (s) thereof,Whereas:(1)Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 repeals and replaces Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 and introduces a number of modifications to the single payment scheme as well as certain other direct payment schemes. At the same time it abolishes a number of direct payment schemes as from 2010. Moreover, it introduces a number of changes to the system according to which direct payments to a farmer who does not comply with certain conditions in the areas of public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare (cross-compliance) are to be subject to reductions or exclusions.(2)The direct payment schemes were first introduced as a result of the reform of the common agricultural policy in 1992 and further developed under subsequent reforms. The schemes have been subject to an integrated administration and control system (hereinafter referred to as integrated system). That system, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 24 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 18., has proven to be an effective and efficient means for the implementation of direct payment schemes. Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 builds upon the basis of that integrated system.(3)Taking into account the modifications made to the direct payments by Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, it is appropriate to repeal and replace Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, whilst basing the new Regulation on the principles as established by Regulation (EC) No 796/2004. At the same time, as a consequence of the incorporation of the wine sector in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, it is appropriate to replace references to Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008OJ L 148, 6.6.2008, p. 1. existing in Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 by references to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. For reasons of coherence, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 should be incorporated into Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009See Page 1 of this Official Journal. which has repealed and replaced Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmersOJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 1..(4)Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 leaves a choice for the Member States with regard to the application of some of the aid schemes provided for therein. This Regulation should, therefore, make provision for the administration and control to be carried out in the Member States in view of their possible choice to enter certain aid schemes. The relevant provisions of this Regulation should, therefore, only apply to the extent as the Member States have made such choices.(5)Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provides, as part of the cross-compliance conditions, for certain obligations of the Member States on the one hand and individual farmers on the other hand, as regards the maintenance of permanent pasture. It is necessary to lay down the details for the determination of the ratio of permanent pasture and agricultural land that has to be maintained and to provide for the individual obligations at the level of farmers to be respected where it is established that the ratio is decreasing to the detriment of land under permanent pasture.(6)To allow effective control and to prevent the submission of multiple aid applications to different paying agencies within one Member State, the Member States should provide for a single system to record the identity of farmers submitting aid applications subject to the integrated system.(7)Detailed rules are needed with regard to the system for the identification of agricultural parcels to be operated by the Member States in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. According to that provision, use has to be made of computerised geographical information system techniques (GIS). It is necessary to clarify at which level the system should operate and the level of details of information that should be available in the GIS.(8)In order to ensure a proper implementation of the single payment scheme as provided for in Title III of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the Member States should establish an identification and registration system according to which the payment entitlements have to be traceable and which allows, inter alia, to cross-check areas declared for the purposes of the single payment scheme with the payment entitlements available to each farmer and between the different payment entitlements as such.(9)Monitoring the adherence to the different cross-compliance obligations requires the setting-up of a control system and of appropriate reductions. For this purpose, different authorities within the Member States need to communicate information on aid applications, control samples, results of on-the-spot checks etc. Provision should be made for the basic elements of such a system.(10)For the sake of simplification, Member States should be allowed to decide that all applications for aid under Titles III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 shall be covered by the single application.(11)Member States should take the required measures to make a proper functioning of the integrated system possible where more than one paying agency is responsible with regard to the same farmer.(12)To allow effective controls, any kind of area use and of the aid schemes concerned should be declared at the same time. Provision should, therefore, be made for submission of a single aid application comprising any applications for aid which are in some way area-related. A single application form should, moreover, be submitted by farmers who do not apply for any of the aids subject to the single application if they have agricultural area at their disposal. However, it is appropriate to allow Member States to exempt farmers from this obligation, where the information is already available to the authorities.(13)Member States should fix a deadline for submission of the single application which, in order to allow timely proceeding and controls of the application, should not be later than the 15 May. Due to the particular climatic conditions in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden, those Member States should however be allowed to set a later date which should not be later than 15 June. Moreover, case-by-case derogations should be envisaged on that same legal basis should climatic conditions in a given year in the future so require.(14)In the single application, the farmer should declare not only the area he is using for agricultural purposes but also his payment entitlements and any information required in order to establish the eligibility for the aid should be requested together with the single application. It is however appropriate to allow Member States to derogate from certain obligations where the payment entitlements to be allocated in the given year are not yet definitively established.(15)With a view to simplifying the application procedures and in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, provision should, in this context, be made for Member States to provide the farmer as far as possible with pre-established information.(16)Any specific information related to production of hemp, nuts starch potato, seeds, cotton, fruit and vegetables and specific support covered by the single application should be requested together with the single application, or where appropriate due to the nature of the information at a later date. It should, furthermore, be provided that areas for which no aid is being requested, are declared in the single application form. Depending on the kind of use, it may be important to have detailed information which is why certain uses should be declared separately whilst other uses may be declared under one heading. However, in cases where Member States already receive that kind of information, derogation from this rule should be allowed.(17)To allow effective monitoring, each Member State should, furthermore, determine the minimum size of agricultural parcels that may be subject to an aid application.(18)To allow as much flexibility as possible with regard to farmers planning concerning the use of area, they should be allowed to amend their single application until such dates where sowing would normally take place, provided that all the particular requirements under the different aid schemes are respected and that the competent authority has not yet informed the farmer of errors contained in the single application, nor notified an on-the-spot check which reveals errors, in relation to the part affected by the amendment. Following the amendment, the possibility should be given to adjust the corresponding supporting documents or contracts to be submitted.(19)The punctual lodging of the application for increase of value or allocation of payment entitlements under the single payment scheme is crucial for an effective administration. Member States should therefore establish a deadline for the application, which should not be later than the 15 May. To simplify procedures Member States should be allowed to decide that the application may be submitted at the same time as the single application. For this reason, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden should however be allowed to set a later date which should not be later than 15 June.(20)In the case where a Member State opts for the application of the various livestock aid schemes, common provisions should be made concerning the details to be included in livestock aid applications.(21)In accordance with Article 117 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, premiums under the bovine aid schemes may only be paid for animals that are properly identified and registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1.. Farmers submitting applications under the aid schemes concerned should therefore be given access to the relevant information in due time.(22)The aid for sugar beet and cane producers, the separate sugar payment and the separate fruit and vegetables payment are, due to their nature, not related to agricultural area, which is why the provisions concerning the single application do not apply to those payment schemes. Provision should therefore be made for an appropriate application procedure.(23)Further requirements to the application for specific support under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 other than area or livestock payments should be established. Due to the possible diversity of the specific support measures it is of particular importance that all information required to establish eligibility is submitted by the farmer. For practical reasons Member States should be allowed to require the supporting documents at a later date than the one which should be set for the application.(24)In the case of application of Article 68(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the beneficiaries are not the farmers but mutual funds having compensated farmers for economic loss. Special requirements should be established for the application for the support to mutual funds reflecting the information needed to establish their eligibility for the payment.(25)The general framework for the introduction of simplified procedures in the context of communications between the farmer and the Member States authorities should be set up. That framework should, in particular, provide for the possibility to make use of electronic means. It has however to be guaranteed that, in particular, the data thus proceeded is fully reliable and that such procedures are operated without any discrimination between farmers. Further, it should, in order to simplify the administration for the farmers as well as for the national authorities, be possible for the national authorities to require the supporting documents needed to verify the eligibility of certain payments, directly from the source of information and not from the farmer.(26)Where aid applications contain obvious errors, it should be possible to adjust them at any time.(27)Rules should be established to deal with the situations where the latest date related to submission of various applications, documents or amendments is a public holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday.(28)Respect for the time limits for the submission of aid applications, for the amendment of area aid applications and for any supporting documents, contracts or declarations is indispensable to enable the national administrations to program and, subsequently, carry out effective controls on the correctness of the aid applications. Provision should, therefore, be made regarding the time limits within which late submissions are acceptable. Moreover, a reduction should be applied to encourage farmers to respect the time limits.(29)The punctual submission of applications for payment entitlements by farmers is essential for the Member States with a view to the timely establishment of the payment entitlements. Late submissions of those applications should therefore only be permitted within the same additional time-limit as for the late submission of any aid applications. A dissuasive reduction-rate should also be applied unless the delay is due to cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances.(30)Farmers should be entitled to withdraw their aid applications or parts thereof at any time provided that the competent authority has not yet informed the farmer of any errors contained in the aid application nor notified an on-the-spot check.(31)Compliance with the provisions on the aid schemes managed under the integrated system should be effectively monitored. To this end, and to have a harmonised level of monitoring in all Member States, it is necessary to set out in detail the criteria and technical procedures for carrying out administrative controls and on-the-spot checks in respect both of the eligibility criteria established for the aid schemes and the cross-compliance obligations. It is essential for the monitoring that the on-the-spot checks can be carried out. Applications should therefore be rejected if a farmer would prevent those checks from taking place.(32)Announcement of on-the-spot checks for eligibility or cross-compliance should only be allowed when this would not jeopardise the checks, and in any case appropriate time limits should be established. Furthermore, where specific sector rules for acts or standards under cross-compliance provide for on-the-spot checks to be un-announced, these rules should be respected.(33)It should be provided that, where appropriate, the Member States should undertake to combine the various controls.(34)With a view to an effective detection of irregularities in the administrative controls, provisions should be established in particular as regards the content of the cross-checks. Irregularities should be followed up by any appropriate procedure.(35)A frequent error when performing the cross-checks is a minor over-declaration of the total agricultural area within a reference parcel. For reasons of simplification, where a reference parcel is subject to an aid application of two or more farmers applying for aid under the same aid scheme and where the overall area declared exceeds the agricultural area with a difference which falls within the tolerance defined for measurement of agricultural parcels, Member States should be authorised to provide for a proportional reduction of the areas concerned. However, the farmers concerned should be entitled to appeal against such decisions.(36)When a Member State makes use of the possibility provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and the payments are granted for areas or livestock it is appropriate to apply the same control rate as for other area-related and livestock payments. For other specific support measures, beneficiaries should be considered as a separate population and be submitted to a specific minimum control rate.(37)The minimum number of farmers to be checked on-the-spot under the various aid schemes should be determined. In the case where Member States opt for the application of the various livestock aid schemes, an integrated holding-based approach should be foreseen in relation to farmers applying for aids under those schemes.(38)The determination of significant irregularities and non-compliances should require an increase in the level of the on-the-spot checks during the current and/or the following year to reach an acceptable level of assurance of the correctness of the aid applications concerned. The extension of the sample should, when it concerns cross-compliance, be targeting the acts or standards concerned.(39)On-the-spot checks of farmers submitting aid applications do not necessarily have to be carried out on each individual animal or agricultural parcel. Checks on a sample basis may, in certain cases, be carried out. However, where this is allowed, the sample should be extended to a degree that guarantees a reliable and representative level of assurance. In some cases the sample may have to be extended to a full control. The Member States should establish the criteria for the selection of the sample to be checked.(40)The sample of the minimum rate of on-the-spot checks should be drawn partly on the basis of a risk analysis and partly at random. The competent authority should establish the risk factors as it is in a better position to choose the relevant risk factors. To assure relevant and efficient risk analysis, the effectiveness of the risk analysis should be assessed and updated on an annual basis taking into account the relevance of each risk factor, comparing the results of randomly and risk-based selected samples and the specific situation in the Member States.(41)In order for the on-the-spot check to be effective it is important for the staff carrying out the checks to be informed of the reason for the selection for the on-the-spot check. The Member States should keep records of such information.(42)In certain cases it is relevant to carry out on-the-spot checks before all applications are received and Member States should therefore be allowed to make a partial selection of the control sample before the end of the application period.(43)To enable the national authorities as well as any competent Community authority to follow up on-the-spot checks carried out, the details of the checks should be recorded in a control report. The farmer or a representative should be given the opportunity to sign the report. However, in the case of on-the-spot checks by means of remote sensing the Member States should be allowed to provide for this right only in cases where the check reveals irregularities. Irrespective of the kind of on-the-spot check carried out, the farmer should receive a copy of the report if irregularities are found.(44)On-the-spot checks of area-related schemes should, to ensure proper monitoring, cover all agricultural parcels declared. It should however for the purpose of simplification be allowed that the actual determination of the parcels is limited to a sample of 50 % of the parcels. The sample should however be reliable and representative and increased in the case of anomalies. Results of the sample should be extrapolated to the rest of the population. It is appropriate to specify that Member States for the purpose of the on-the-spot checks may make use of certain technical tools.(45)Detailed rules regarding the determination of areas and the measurement methods to be used should be laid down to ensure a quality of the measurement which is equivalent to that required by technical standards as drawn up at Community level.(46)Experience has shown that, in relation to the determination of the area of agricultural parcels eligible for area payments, it is necessary to define the acceptable width of certain features of the fields, in particular hedges, ditches and walls. In view of specific environmental needs, some flexibility should be provided within the limits taken into account when the regional yields were fixed.(47)It should be established under what conditions agricultural parcels containing trees should be considered as eligible for the area-related schemes. It is also appropriate to establish a provision concerning the administrative procedure to follow in case of areas used in common.(48)The conditions for the use of remote sensing for on-the-spot checks should be laid down and provision should be made for physical checks to be carried out in cases where photo-interpretation does not lead to clear results. Due to for example weather conditions there might be cases where additional checks to be carried out following an increase in the rate of the on-the-spot check can no longer be carried out by means of remote sensing. In that case they should be carried out by traditional means.(49)Under the single payment scheme, farmers having special entitlements may receive support if they fulfill a certain activity requirement. For the sake of an effective verification of that requirement, Member States should lay down procedures for on-the-spot checks of farmers having special entitlements.(50)Given the particularities of the aid scheme for seed, cotton and sugar in accordance with Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, special control provisions should be established.(51)Article 39(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provides that in order to be eligible for direct payments, the varieties of hemp must have a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content not exceeding 0,2 %. With a view to the implementation of this rule, the system to be used by the Member States for the verification of THC content in hemp should be established.(52)Moreover, it is necessary to provide for a time period during which hemp grown for fiber may not be harvested after flowering in order to enable the control obligations provided for in respect of these crops to be carried out effectively.(53)In the case where a Member State opts for the application of the various livestock aid schemes, where aid is being applied for under those aid schemes, the timing and the minimum content of on-the-spot checks should be specified. In order to check effectively the correctness of declarations in aid applications and notifications to the computerised database for bovine animals it is essential to carry out a major part of such on-the-spot checks whilst animals still have to be kept on farm under the retention obligation.(54)In the case where a Member State opts for the application of the various aid schemes for bovine animals, the proper identification and registration of bovine animals being an eligibility condition pursuant to Article 117 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, it should be ensured that Community aid is granted only for bovines properly identified and registered. Such checks should also be carried out in respect of bovine animals not yet claimed but which could be subject to an aid application because such animals, due to the set-up of several of the bovine aid schemes, are, in many cases, only claimed for aid after they have left the holding.(55)For ovine and caprine, the on-the-spot checks should in particular cover the fulfillment of the retention period and the correctness of the entries in the register.(56)In the case where a Member State opts for the application of the slaughter premium, special provision should be made for on-the-spot checks to be carried out in slaughterhouses in order to check that animals claimed for aid are eligible and that the information contained in the computerised database is correct. The Member States should be authorised to apply two different bases for selecting slaughterhouses for such checks.(57)As far as the slaughter premium granted after export of bovine animals is concerned, special provisions are necessary along with Community control provisions relating to export in general because of the differences in the control purposes.(58)Special control provisions have been established on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the CouncilOJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 9. as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals. Where the controls under that Regulation are carried out, the results should be contained in the control report for the purposes of the integrated system.(59)Furthermore, there is a need to establish provisions as regards the control report in case of on-the-spot checks in slaughterhouses or when the premium is granted after export. For the purpose of coherence, it should also be provided that in case of non-compliances with the provisions of Title I of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 or Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EECOJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8. copies of the control reports should be sent to the authorities responsible for the application of those Regulations.(60)In the case where a Member State makes use of the possibility to grant specific support as provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the control provisions established by this Regulation should be applied to the extent possible. Where it is not possible to apply those provisions, Member States should provide an equivalent control level. Specific requirements for control of payment applications by mutual funds and for investments should be established.(61)Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 introduces cross-compliance obligations for farmers receiving payments under all direct payment schemes listed in Annex I to that Regulation and provides for a system of reductions and exclusions where such obligations are not fulfilled. That system also applies to payments under Articles 85p, 103q and 103r of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The details for that system should be established.(62)The details concerning which authorities in the Member States carry out controls on cross-compliance obligations should be established.(63)In certain cases it might be useful for the Member States to carry out administrative controls on cross-compliance obligations. However, such control tools should not be made compulsory for the Member States.(64)The minimum control rate for the respect of the cross-compliance obligations has to be established. That control rate should be fixed at 1 % of farmers subject to cross-compliance falling under the area of competence of each control authority to be selected on the basis of an appropriate risk analysis.(65)The Member States should be given the option to fulfill the minimum control rate at the level of each competent control authority, at the level of the paying agency or at the level of an act or standard, or group of acts or standards.(66)Where the specific legislation applicable to the act and standards fixes minimum control rates, Member States should respect these rates. However, Member States should be allowed to apply a single control rate for the cross-compliance on-the-spot checks. If Member States choose this option, any instance of non-compliance detected in the course of on-the-spot checks under the sectoral legislation should be reported and followed-up under cross-compliance.(67)Rules which in certain cases require a follow-up by the competent authority that a remedial action has been taken by the farmers have been established by Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. In order to avoid any weakening of the control system, in particular as to the sampling for the cross-compliance on-the-spot checks, it should be clarified that such follow-up cases should not be taken into account when establishing the minimum control sample.(68)The control sample for cross-compliance should either be drawn on the basis of the samples of farmers that are selected for an on-the-spot check as regards eligibility criteria, or from the overall population of farmers submitting aid applications for direct payments. In the latter case certain sub-options should be allowed.(69)The sampling of on-the-spot checks for cross-compliance can be improved by allowing taking into account into the risk analysis the farmers participation in the farm advisory system provided for in Articles 12 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as well as farmers participation in relevant certifications systems. It should however be demonstrated when taking that participation into account that the farmers participating in those schemes represent a lesser risk than farmers not participating in those schemes.(70)On-the-spot checks for cross-compliance would in general require several visits on the same farm. In order to reduce the burden of the checks for both farmers and administrations, the checks may be limited to one control visit. The timing of that visit should be clarified. Nevertheless, the Member States should ensure that a representative and effective check of the requirements and standards is performed within the same calendar year.(71)To simplify the cross-compliance on-the-spot checks and to make better use of existing control capacities, it should be provided, when the effectiveness of the controls is at least equal to that achieved when the on-the-spot checks are to be carried out, to replace controls at farm level by administrative controls or checks at the level of undertakings.(72)It should furthermore be possible for the Member States to make use of objective indicators specific to certain requirements or standards when performing the cross-compliance on-the-spot checks. Those indicators should however be directly linked to the requirements or standards they represent and cover all elements to be checked.(73)Rules for the setting-up of detailed and specific control reports for cross-compliance have to be established. The specialised controllers in the field should indicate any findings and also the degree of seriousness of such findings in order to enable the paying agency to fix the related reductions or, as the case may be, to decide on exclusions from receiving direct payments.(74)The farmers should be informed about any possible non-compliance determined following an on-the-spot check. It is appropriate to provide for a certain time limit within which the farmers should receive this information. However, exceeding such time limit should not entitle the farmers concerned to avoid the consequences that the determined non-compliance would otherwise trigger.(75)Reductions and exclusions should be established having regard to the principle of proportionality and the special problems linked to cases of force majeure as well as exceptional and natural circumstances. In the case of cross-compliance obligations, reductions and exclusions may only be applied where the farmer acted negligently or intentionally. Reductions and exclusions should be graded according to the seriousness of the irregularity committed and should go as far as the total exclusion from one or several aid schemes for a specified period. They should, with regard to the eligibility criteria, take into account the particularities of the various aid schemes.(76)In order to enable Member States to carry out controls effectively, in particular controls on the respect of cross-compliance obligations, farmers shall in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 declare all the areas at their disposal whether or not they claim aid for such areas. It is necessary to provide for a mechanism to ensure that farmers comply with that obligation.(77)For the sake of determination of areas and calculation of reductions it is necessary to define the areas falling within the same crop-group. An area should be taken into account several times if it is declared for aid under more than one aid scheme.(78)Payment of support under the single payment scheme requires an equal number of payment entitlements and eligible hectares. For the purpose of this scheme it is therefore appropriate to provide that the calculation of the payment in the case of discrepancies between the payment entitlements declared and the area declared should be based on the lower size. To avoid calculation based on non-existing entitlements, it should be provided that the number of payment entitlements used for the calculation should not exceed the number of payment entitlements at the farmers' disposal.(79)In relation to area aid applications, irregularities normally affect parts of areas. Over-declarations in respect of one parcel may, therefore, be off-set against under-declarations of other parcels of the same crop-group. Within a certain margin of tolerance it should be foreseen that aid applications are only adjusted to the area actually determined and reductions only start to apply once this margin has been exceeded.(80)Furthermore, in relation to applications for area related payments, differences between the total area declared in the application and the total area determined as eligible are often insignificant. To avoid a high number of minor adjustments of applications it should be provided that the aid application should not be adjusted to the area determined unless a certain level of differences is exceeded.(81)Special provisions are necessary to take into account the particularities of aid applications under the aid schemes for starch potato, seed and cotton.(82)In the case where an over-declaration was intentional, special reduction rules should apply.(83)Implementing rules for the basis of calculation of livestock premiums should be laid down.(84)Farmers should be allowed to replace the bovine and ovine/caprine animals under certain conditions and within the limits allowed under the relevant sectoral rules.(85)As far as livestock aid applications are concerned, irregularities lead to the ineligibility of the animal concerned. Reductions should be foreseen as from the first animal found with irregularities but, irrespective of the level of the reduction, there should be a less harsh sanction where three animals or less are found with irregularities. In all other cases the severity of the sanction should depend on the percentage of animals found with irregularities.(86)With regard to ovine and caprine animals a number of specific provisions should be laid down due to the particularities of the sector.(87)Where, due to natural circumstances, a farmer is unable to fulfill the retention obligations under the sectoral rules, reductions and exclusions should not be applied.(88)In the case where a Member State opts for the application of the slaughter premium, due to the importance of slaughterhouses for the proper functioning of some of the bovine aid schemes, provision should also be made for cases where slaughterhouses, due to gross negligence or intentionally, issue incorrect certificates or declarations.(89)In case the specific support as provided for in Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 is granted as an area-related payment or a livestock payment, the provisions for reductions and exclusions to be hereto established should, to the extent possible, be applied mutatis mutandis. For other cases Member States should for each measure under the specific support provide for equivalent reductions and exclusions.(90)Information on the results of controls of cross-compliance should be made available to all paying agencies responsible for the management of the different payments subject to cross-compliance requirements so that, where the findings so justify, appropriate reductions are applied.(91)Furthermore, where the possibility not to apply any reduction for minor non-compliances or not to apply reductions amounting to EUR 100 or less, as provided for in Articles 23(2) or 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, is applied by a Member State, rules should be established where farmers fail to undertake the remedial action required from them.(92)With regard to cross-compliance obligations, apart from grading reductions or exclusions in view of the principle of proportionality, it should be provided that as of a certain moment, repeated infringements of the same cross-compliance obligation should, after a prior warning to the farmer, be treated as an intentional non-compliance.(93)Reductions and exclusions with regard to eligibility criteria should, as a general rule, not apply where the farmer submitted factually correct information or where he can show otherwise that he is not at fault.(94)Farmers who give notice to the competent national authorities at any time of incorrect aid applications should not be subject to any reductions or exclusions irrespective of the reason of the incorrectness, provided that the farmer has not been informed of the competent authority's intention to carry out an on-the-spot check and the authority has not already informed the farmer of any irregularity in the application.(95)The same should apply in relation to incorrect data contained in the computerised database both in respect of claimed bovine animals for which such irregularities not only constitute a non-respect of a cross-compliance obligation but also a breach of an eligibility criterion, and in respect of unclaimed bovine animals where such irregularities are relevant only under the cross-compliance obligations.(96)Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 defines cases of force majeure and exceptional circumstances to be recognised by the Member States. Where, as a consequence of such cases, a farmer is not able to fulfill his obligations, he should not lose his right to the aid payment. A deadline within which such case is to be notified by the farmer should however be fixed.(97)The management of small amounts is a burdensome task for the competent authorities of the Member States. It is therefore appropriate to authorise the Member States not to pay amounts of aid that are below a certain minimum.(98)Specific and detailed provisions have to be laid down in order to ensure the equitable application of various reductions to be applied in respect of one or several aid applications by the same farmer. The reductions and exclusions provided for in this Regulation should apply without prejudice to additional sanctions under any other provisions of Community or national law.(99)The sequence for the calculation of various potential reductions on each support scheme should be determined. In order to ensure the respect of the various budgetary ceilings established for the direct support schemes, it should in particular be provided that the payments are reduced by a coefficient where the ceilings would otherwise be exceeded.(100)Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provide for reductions and, as the case may be, adjustments of the sum of direct payments to be granted to a farmer in respect of a calendar year due to modulation and financial discipline, respectively. The implementing provisions should provide for the basis for calculation of those reductions and adjustments in the process of calculating the amount of the payments to be made to farmers.(101)In order to ensure the uniform application of the principle of good faith throughout the Community, where amounts unduly paid are recovered, the conditions under which that principle may be invoked should be laid down without prejudice to the treatment of the expenditure concerned in the context of the clearance of accounts under Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policyOJ L 171, 2.7.2005, p. 6..(102)Rules need to be established to cover the eventuality where a farmer has received unduly a number of payment entitlements or that the value of each of the payment entitlements was fixed at an incorrect level and where the case is not covered by Article 137 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. However, in certain cases, where unduly allocations of entitlements did not affect the total value, but only the number of the entitlements of the farmer, Member States should correct the allocation or where appropriate the type of entitlements, without reducing the value thereof. That provision should only apply if the farmer could not have reasonably detected the error. Furthermore, in certain cases, unduly allocated entitlements correspond to very small amounts and a substantial administrative burden is required to recover those entitlements. In light of simplification and the balance between the administrative burden and the amount to be recovered, a minimum amount that may trigger a recovery should be fixed. Moreover, provision has to be made for the case where such payment entitlements have been transferred and for the case where transfers of payment entitlements have occurred without respecting Article 46(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 or Articles 43, 62(1), 62(2) and 68(5) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.(103)Rules should be established concerning the consequences of transfers of entire holdings which are under certain obligations in accordance with the direct payment schemes subject to the integrated system.(104)As a general rule, Member States should take any further measures necessary to ensure a proper functioning of the integrated administrative control system. The Member States should give each other mutual assistance where necessary.(105)The Commission should, where appropriate, be informed of any measures taken by the Member States to introduce changes to their implementation of the integrated system. In order to enable the Commission to monitor the integrated system effectively, the Member States should send to it annual control statistics. The Member States should, moreover, inform the Commission of any measures they are taking with regard to the maintenance of land under permanent pasture as well as of any reduction applied in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.(106)Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down rules concerning the amounts resulting from the modulation. A part of the amounts should be allocated in accordance with an allocation key for which rules should be set up based on the criteria established in that Article.(107)This Regulation should apply as from 1 January 2010. Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 should therefore be repealed as from that date. However, it should continue to apply with regard to aid applications relating to marketing years or premium periods which start before 1 January 2010.(108)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets and of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: