21 Effectiveness of school milk and school
fruit schemes
| (33301)
16099/11
—
| Special Report No. 10/2011 of the European Court of Auditors: "Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?"
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 3 November 2011
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 8 November 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
21.1 Under the CAP, the EU has two similar instruments specifically
targeting children:
- the School Milk Scheme, through which grants have been available
since 1977 for the sale of reduced-rate milk products in schools;
- the School Fruit Scheme, which has co-financed
the distribution of fruit and vegetables in schools since the
2009-2010 school year.
Both schemes pursue the same two objectives of helping
to stabilise the market and to promote healthy eating, and whereas
the Milk Scheme in particular was originally seen as a way of
disposing of stocks, the Commission has gradually come to present
better nutrition as the main objective. Both schemes also aim
to achieve a twofold impact — to increase or maintain the
consumption of these products in the short term, whilst having
an educational influence on eating habits in the long term.
The current document
21.2 In this Special Report, the Court of Auditors
has conducted a combined examination of the effectiveness of both
schemes, although, since the School Fruit Scheme was only launched
in 2009, the principal emphasis has been on the effectiveness
of the School Milk Scheme, supplemented by a comparative review
of the system now being set up for fruit.
21.3 The audit sought to establish whether:
- participation was sufficiently
encouraged, and whether it had been enough for the objectives
to be achieved;
- spending has had a direct impact on the beneficiaries'
consumption of the products distributed (and, in particular, whether
the products would be consumed if no aid were available);
- the schemes are likely to meet their educational
objectives and influence future eating habits.
21.4 The audit looked at the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
school years, and was carried out at the Commission and in Germany,
France, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom,[124]
which accounted for 75% of payments under the Milk Scheme in 2009,
and 63% of the budget estimate for the first year of the Fruit
Scheme. It examined the procedures set up by the Commission and
the Member States for implementing and monitoring the schemes,
and visited 31 applicants receiving aid on behalf of over 40,000
educational establishments and some two million children. Further
visits were made to 56 establishments (attended by over 16,000
children) participating in at least one of the schemes.
OVERVIEW OF THE TWO SCHEMES' ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
21.5 The Court noted that both forms of support are
paid directly to schools or to other applicants, which may be
education authorities, suppliers or intermediary bodies set up
specifically for that purpose. Once approved, applicants have
operational responsibility for the supply procedure (purchase,
storage, distribution and administration).
Milk products
21.6 Aid comes in the form of a fixed-rate EU subsidy
of €18.50 euro for 100 kilogrammes of milk, with no obligation
for Member States to contribute. Each establishment decides whether
or not to participate, and the EU contribution is calculated on
the sum of the eligible applications which are received. No budgetary
ceiling has been defined, but the Regulation provides for a maximum
subsidisable quantity of 0.25 litre per school day and per pupil
in regular attendance at the establishment (which the Court says
is not usually reached by the applicants).
21.7 Although the scheme may take any number of different
forms, three models in particular were seen in the Member States
visited — subsidies for milk products[125]
included in canteen meals (mainly France , Italy and Sweden) which
accounted for 44%; milk sold at a reduced price outside canteens
(Germany, Poland, and the UK (children above 5 years of age)),
which accounted for 33%; and milk distributed free of charge outside
canteens (mainly Poland, and the UK (children up to 5 years of
age)), which accounted for 23%.
Fruit and vegetables
21.8 EU aid accounts for between 50% and 75% of the
cost of the fruit and vegetables distributed, including certain
associated charges, with the remainder usually being financed
by the Member States. The Regulation sets an overall budget ceiling
of €90 million, shared among the participating Member States,
with each Member State free to decide, through its national strategy,
how to divide its national allocation among potential applicants.
All of the fruit that the auditors saw being distributed was free
of charge and supplied outside mealtimes. However, support for
the distribution of fruit is conditional on the mandatory adoption
of accompanying educational measures to ensure that the scheme
is a success. Although ineligible for EU funding, these measures
are considered a crucial part of the scheme.
21.9 The Court noted that, to a large extent, both
schemes are now grounded in the hypothesis that there is a positive
link between public health and the consumption of these subsidised
products, and says that it did not set out to test that hypothesis,
because it is not mandated to do so. However, it finds that the
hypothesis is not universally accepted. It also observes that,
ten years after the Council's decision to maintain the School
Milk Scheme, despite its being rated very negatively and a proposal
from the Commission that it should be terminated,
the scheme has not been significantly modified,
and, at best, still has very limited impact, particularly in relation
to the short-term aim of increasing consumption.
21.10 It also comments that:
- owing in particular to the
low subsidy rate, the scheme continues to be relatively unattractive
and, as a result, generally has no more than a deadweight effect,
in that the products subsidised would in most cases either have
been included in canteen meals anyway or would probably have been
bought by the beneficiaries even without the subsidy;
- whilst the decision by certain Member States
to organise distribution free of charge has resulted in a more
satisfactory impact, this form of distribution is at present covered
by costly national schemes to which the EU budget makes only a
marginal contribution;
- as regards the anticipated long-term aim, the
scheme at present takes insufficient account of the stated educational
goals, with distribution not always being made in a visible manner,
and with no other specific educational measures having been introduced.
21.11 On the other hand, the Court did find that
most of the weaknesses which were identified in respect of school
milk had been noted and, at least in part, taken into consideration
by the Commission in its planning of the Fruit Scheme. The main
consequences were the adoption of a single model for distribution,
which is made free of charge and outside the canteens, and the
introduction of tools to facilitate the educational goals, but
it added that these improvements came at a high cost, a significant
part of which is borne by national and local budgets. However,
it also says that, whilst it is still too early to come to any
definitive conclusions about the new scheme's ultimate effectiveness,
it does nonetheless appear considerably more likely to achieve
its short-and long-term objectives (and thus to offers some indication
as to how the Milk Scheme might be improved).
21.12 In the light of these findings, the Court's
main recommendations are that, in view of the very limited impact
of the Milk Scheme, whether or not to retain it should be made
conditional on thorough reforms being made to remedy the weaknesses
which have been identified. In particular, account should be taken
of the product's recognised nutritional value in the light of
the public health objectives, and, if thorough reforms are to
be undertaken, they should be based on the following considerations:
- If the Milk Scheme is to have
a real impact on the volume of milk consumed in schools, the subsidy
paid per kilogramme should be increased very significantly to
a level where distribution can be free of charge. However, this
would not entail increased EU spending, but rather focusing resources
on a narrower target population, which could also effectively
contribute to addressing the problem of deadweight. The population
to be targeted would have to be determined in the light of a scale
of nutritional needs.
- Where the Milk Scheme is concerned, steps should
be taken to limit the specific deadweight effect associated with
distribution through canteens, whilst taking care to ensure maximum
visibility for the scheme.
- Where the educational objectives are concerned,
the two schemes should adopt a more harmonised assessment of the
role and importance of accompanying measures. If the importance
of these measures is confirmed, the desirability of making them
eligible for EU co-financing could be reconsidered.
- More generally, there should be greater coordination
and synergy between the two schemes in order to ensure that they
present a harmonised approach to nutrition and are managed efficiently.
21.13 In its response to the report, the Commission
has noted that various revisions to the School Milk Scheme have
taken place over the last decade with a view to increasing its
effectiveness, and it does not share the Court's assessment of
the extent of the Scheme's weaknesses.
The Government's view
21.14 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 8 November
2011, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food at the Department
for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice) says
that the Court's findings are of interest to the UK, which not
only participates in the School Milk Scheme, but also provides
additional 'top-up' subsidies (from national budgets) to schools
in receipt of these EU funds. (On the other hand, the UK does
not currently participate in the EU School Fruit Scheme, believing
it would be far more financially effective for Member States to
run their own fruit scheme, as the UK does).
21.15 The Minister notes that the Commission has
recently published a series of proposals, setting out the proposed
legislative framework for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
in the period 2014-20, and that the proposal[126]
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets would
continue the EU School Milk Scheme with certain modifications,
and would specify the products eligible for the Scheme; the national
or regional strategies which Member States must draw up in order
to benefit from the aid; and the conditions for granting aid.
He also notes that this is accompanied by a proposal to increase
the budget for the EU School Fruit Scheme from €90 million
to 150 million, and to reduce the percentage of Member State co-financing
from 50% down to 25% (or 10% in convergence and outermost Regions).
21.16 The Minister says that the UK is committed
to a CAP which provides improved value for money, is significantly
simpler overall for beneficiaries, administrators and paying agencies,
and can be operated more cheaply and more efficiently than the
current regime. He adds that it will work constructively with
the Commission on ways to improve the effectiveness of the School
Milk Scheme and its use of resources.
Conclusion
21.17 Since the School Milk Scheme continues to
be of political interest, we think it right to draw to the attention
of the House this report by the European Court of Auditors, which
makes a number of pertinent observations on the way in which it
has operated, as well as recommendations for improving it. Having
said that, we do not think any further consideration is called
for, and we are therefore clearing the document.
124 Sweden and the UK only participate in the Milk
Scheme. Back
125
For example, in France, portions of cheese or yoghurt as a dessert
(canteens); in Italy, parmesan on a serving of pasta or mozzarella
in a salad (canteens); in Sweden, self-service milk fountains
during meals (canteens); in the UK and Poland, cartons of milk
sold at a reduced rate or distributed free of charge to younger
children, mainly with help from the national budget; and, in Germany,
cartons of flavoured milk sold at a reduced rate in school shops. Back
126
(33258) 15397/11: see chapter 19 of this Report. Back
|
