FAQ s > About Gross Value Added (GVA)
In response to questions from Member States about value added indicators, DG AGRI has clarified in a working paper the various issues and how they are dealt with. The working paper is divided in three parts:
- Part I deals with inconsistencies related to definitions (measurement) of the CMEF value added indicators applied in farming and forestry.
- Part II deals with monitoring related questions regarding the CMEF value added indicators, but also other result indicators.
- Part III contains annexes. Annex 1 specifies the changes in the respective indicator fiches of the Handbook on CMEF. Annex 2 deals with cumulative reporting of the result indicators including some examples.
Read more about Guidance on specific indicators: Gross Value Added.
Read the Working Paper on the CMEF Gross Value Added Indicators [PDF
]
The following list of questions is answered in Part I - Definitions (measurement) of the CMEF Gross Value Added indicators):
a. Net versus gross
Q1: How to deal with an inconsistency present in Guidance note I between the method of measurement in the fiches and the algorithm for result indicators #2 and #7?
Q2: How to deal with the different use of gross and net in relation both to the value added (i.e. gross/net value added) and to the effects of policy intervention (i.e. gross/net effects), mainly for the impact indicator #1?
b. Output versus turnover
Q3: How to deal with different interpretations for output and turnover in the indicator fiches for impact indicator #1 and for result indicators #2 and #7?
Q4: How should result indicator #2, as proposed in the relevant indicator fiche, relate to the FADN methodology and data?
Q5: If the result indicators #2 and #7 refer to the “gross value added”, whereas the impact indicator #1 measures the “net value added”, how can the three be articulated?
c. Treatment of support and compensation payments
Q6: Should the various kinds of support and compensatory payments that the beneficiary holdings/enterprises receive be excluded from or added to the turnover? Would there be a problem if the measured result indicator yields a negative value?
d. Paid versus unpaid labour
Q7: How to deal with the valuation and take-up of the unpaid labour in the direct costs? And how to account for unpaid labour in the calculation of impact indicator #3?
e. Current versus constant prices
Q8: Should current or constant prices be used in the calculation of result indicators #2 and #7?
f. Data collection
Q9: How to overcome difficulties regarding data collection at the individual holding/enterprise level?
g. Slowly unfolding effects
Q10: How to deal with the annual reporting requirements on result indicators for investment-type measures, especially those that have slowly unfolding effects?
h. Others
Q11: Should the value of services provided by farmers be included in the value of the output as regards the calculation of the GVA in the result indicator #2?
Q12: Should the investment-related support be also excluded from the calculation of the result indicators #2 and #7?
Q13: How to deal with unpaid voluntary work for the calculation of the result indicators #2 and #7?
Q14: Is it necessary to collect all indicators for each of the measures, for which the application of these indicators is required by the CMEF? How much flexibility can there be regarding the collection of indicators?
Q15: Why should all subsidies and transfer payments and taxes be excluded from the calculation of the GVA?
Q16: How to deal with transfer payments to agricultural holdings for the provision of public goods in relation to the effect on GVA?
Q17: Is the result indicator #2 equivalent to "the average profit after taxes of assisted holdings" according to the FADN equivalent net farm income SE 420?
The following list of questions is answered in Part II (Monitoring related questions regarding result indicators)
a. Reported values in case of insignificant contribution to results
Q18: Can measures for which reporting obligations are defined with respect to result indicators #2 and #6 but which have an insignificant contribution to given results, have ‘0’ value in the corresponding monitoring tables?
b. Registration frequency (raised for GVA but concerns other result indicators)
Q19: What is the registration and reporting frequency for result indicators #2 and #6?
c. Double counting and periodicity of result indicator #6
Q20: Dealing with double counting and periodicity of result indicator #6 ‘area under successful agricultural/forestry land management:
- Frequency: should the areas be counted cumulatively every year?
In that case the first areas reported in year 2008 would be counted every year?
- Is double counting allowed? It might be very difficult to isolate only one predominant objective
- How should 'successful land management' be interpreted? Are any examples available?
d. Problems in establishing target levels (raised for GVA but could concern other result indicator)
Q21: What is the purpose of establishing target levels for the impact indicators for each measure
e. Values to be included in the monitoring tables for the GVA indicator (result indicators #2 and #6)
Q22: How should values be reported? Should average or aggregate values be reported?
f. Level of COLLECTION (raised for GVA but concerns other result indicators)
Q23: Is data required to be collected on output and intermediate consumption for each supported holding for result indicators #2 and #6 or is sampling of beneficiaries acceptable?
g. GVA definition, transition
Q24: How to deal with the data collected before the clarification of the definition of GVA as specified in the Working paper? In particular, should data be corrected and how can it be compared?
The following 2 questions are answered in Part III (Annexes)
Have the CMEF Indicator Fiches been changed for result indicators #2, #7, and impact indicators #1, #3?
Are there examples available on cumulative reporting of the result indicators?