The European Court of Auditors has published today a special report on the Single Payment Scheme of the common agricultural policy. The Single Payment Scheme (SPS) is the main instrument for providing EU farmers with financial support. Presently, 17 Member States apply the SPS, the UK introduced the scheme in 2005. The European Court of Auditors noted that the payments made under the SPS amounted to €28.8 billion in 2009.

In this report, the Court has focused its attention “on the beneficiaries of the policy, the conditions of access to the scheme and the definition of eligible land.” The Court found that the scheme has contributed to the achievement of CAP’s objectives: “supporting farmers’ income and to maintaining agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC).” However, according to the Court “the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features” which are related to the definition of the beneficiaries of the policy, the nature of eligible parcels and activities , the environmental impact of the scheme and the distribution of aid across and within Member States. The ECA has, therefore, recommended the Commission to review such features.

According to the Court persons or entities not engaged in agricultural activity have been benefiting from the SPS payment because of the way the definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme was formulated and applied, such as recreational and sports clubs, railway companies, nature reserves, airports and city councils, hunting and sporting estates, government bodies, schools and camping sites. In fact, the ECA has found cases “where the system encouraged investments by operators who have little interest in farming as an activity but who exploit the guaranteed returns that SPS provides.”

The Court also noted that " the specifications of land eligible for EU aid as well as of eligible agricultural activity are loosely defined” consequently farmers have been receiving payments “without having to carry out any maintenance activity and there is no direct link between the level of the SPS aid and the costs incurred in maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental condition.”

Moreover, the Court found that “The SPS primarily benefits few but large beneficiaries.”