EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.12.2021 SWD(2021) 387 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy

















2014-2020 {COM(2021) 815 final}



Table of contents List of visuals List of evaluations Visuals for Chapter 3.1. Visuals for Chapter 3.2. Visuals for Chapter 3.3. Visuals for Chapter 3.4. Other visuals



List of visuals Figure 1. Level of agricultural income and share of direct support in income in the EU. Figure 2. Total factor productivity in agriculture in the EU-27. Figure 3. Number of recognised producer organisations in the EU. Figure 4. Share of EU in global agri-food exports (%). Figure 5. EU citizens’ awareness of the EU quality labels (%).

Figure 6. The distribution of direct payments and land in the EU, 2019. Figure 7. Distribution of direct payments` beneficiaries by size class in the EU, 2019. Figure 8. EU average income and direct payments per worker by physical farm size and share of direct payments in income, 2017-2019. Figure 9. EU average income and direct payments per hectare by physical farm size class, 2017-2019. Figure 10. EU average income per worker (EUR) and share of direct payments (DP) in income (%) by economic size class, 2017-2019. Figure 11. EU average direct payments per hectare by economic size class (EUR/ha). Figure 12. Income gap between farming and the overall economy (EUR/worker), 2017-2019. Figure 13. EU agricultural areas subject to environmental requirements, 2019 (million ha). Figure 14. Organic areas (1 000 ha) and number of producers. Figure 15. Level of direct payment per hectare by class of intensification in the EU (EUR/ha), 2017-2019. Figure 16. Breakdown of the main types of Ecological Focus Area, 2019. Figure 17. Evolution of areas funded under AECM sub-measure 10.1 'Payment for Agri-Environment Figure 18. Farmland birds indices in the EU (population index 2000=100), 2005-2019. Figure 19. Share of agricultural land in moderate to severe risk of soil erosion by water, 2016 (%). Figure 20. Percentage of groundwater stations in the EU exceeding 50mg nitrates per litre, 2012-2016 and 2016-2019. Figure 21. Harmonised Plant protection products. Figure 22. Development of GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU. Figure 23. Development of GHG emissions and agricultural production (2005 = 100). Figure 24. Number of water bodies under significant pressure from agricultural water abstraction, 2018. Figure 25. Average EU direct payments per hectare in areas facing constraints (EUR/ha), 2017-2019.

Table 1. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the viable food production. Indicator Year Unit 2013 2019 Share of direct support in agricultural factor income 25.90 - % Variability of gross farm income per full time equivalent 1.02 1.10 ratio Variability of gross farm income per farm 0.99 1.16 ratio Share of value for primary producers in the food chain 26.20 - % Share of EU agri-food exports in world's agri-food exports 17.30 17.57 % Share of EU agri-primary products' exports in production values 10.70 12.48 % Share of EU food industry products' exports in production values 9.50 10.75 % Share of final products in EU agri-food exports 43.10 47.19 % Agri-food imports from least developed countries 2.72 3.34 billion EUR Note: Selection according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar I . Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network), Eurostat, Global Trade Atlas. Table 2. CAP Pillar II result indicators related to the viable food production (EU-28). Indicator Year Unit 2015 2019 Agricultural holdings with Rural Development support for investments in restructuring or modernisation 0.15 1.81 % Agricultural holdings receiving Rural Development support for participating in quality schemes, local markets and short supply circuits, and producer groups/organisations 0.01 0.88 % Farms participating in risk management schemes supported by the CAP 0.03 5.99 % Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar II . Source: Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators . Figure 1. Level of agricultural income and share of direct support in income in the EU. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer (RPI_01_1) and on Eurostat, Economic accounts for agriculture ( aact_eaa04 , aact_ali01 ).

Figure 2. Total factor productivity in agriculture in the EU-27. Note: Total factor productivity (TFP) compares total outputs relative to the total inputs used in production of the output. As both output and inputs are expressed in term of volume indices, the indicator measures TFP growth. The TFP is a composite indicator for land, capital and labour productivity growth. The comparison between Member States of the change over time of TFP growth is meaningful but not the comparison of the indicator as such. This is an index, in the first step 2010 is set at 100, then 3 year-averages are calculated to smooth the effect of weather e.g. on the indicator. Therefore, in the graph 2010 corresponds to the (2008-2010) average. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer ( CTX_SEC_27_1 ). Figure 3. Number of recognised producer organisations in the EU. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer ( OIM_05_2 ). Figure 4. Share of EU in global agri-food exports (%). Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer (RPI_04). Figure 5. EU citizens’ awareness of the EU quality labels (%). Source: Special Eurobarometer 504 and Special Eurobarometer 410 . Figure 6. Distribution of direct payments and land in the EU, 2019. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) data. Figure 7. Distribution of direct payments` beneficiaries by size class in the EU, 2019.

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CATS data. Figure 8. EU average income and direct payments per worker by physical farm size and share of direct payments in income, 2017-2019. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. Figure 9. EU average income and direct payments per hectare by physical farm size class, 2017-2019. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. Figure 10. EU average income per worker (EUR) and share of direct payments (DP) in income (%) by economic size class, 2017-2019. Note: Economic size classes: (1) EUR 2 000 – < 8 000; (2) EUR 8 000 – < 25 000; (3) EUR 25 000 – < 50 000; (4) EUR 50 000 – < 100 000; (5) EUR 100 000 – < 500 000; (6) > EUR 500 000. From 2018, the first economic size class includes only farms from EUR 4 000 to EUR 8 000. The income indicator used is the farm net value added per full time equivalent. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. Figure 11. EU average direct payments per hectare by economic size class (EUR/ha). Note: Economic size classes: (1) EUR 2 000 – < 8 000; (2) EUR 8 000 – < 25 000; (3) EUR 25 000 – < 50 000; (4) EUR 50 000 – < 100 000; (5) EUR 100 000 – < 500 000; (6) > EUR 500 000. From 2018, the first economic size class includes only farms from EUR 4 000 to EUR 8 000. The income indicator used is the farm net value added per full time equivalent. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. Figure 12. Income gap between farming and the overall economy (EUR/worker), 2017-2019. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on Eurostat (online tables aact_eaa01 , aact_ali01 , nama_10_a10 , nama_10_a10_e ).





Visuals for Chapter 3.2. Table 3. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. Indicator Year Unit 2013 2016 2019 Share of organic area in total agricultural area 5.70 6.70 7.90 % Share of organic cattle in total cattle herd 4.10 4.50 5.60 % Share of organic pig in total pig herd 1.30 1.40 2.00 % Share of organic sheep in total sheep flock 5.10 5.10 6.00 % Share of organic goat in total goat herd 5.90 6.30 8.00 % Share of permanent grassland in total agricultural area 33.40 33.80 34.50 % Share of temporary grassland in total agricultural area - 5.00 5.00 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land - 10.50 9.20 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: afforested areas - 0.10 0.00 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: buffer strips - 0.10 - % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: catch crops, or green cover - 4.80 5.90 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: land lying fallow - 2.50 1.90 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: landscape features - 0.50 0.20 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: nitrogen-fixing crops - 6.40 2.10 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: short rotation coppice - 0.00 0.00 % Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: strips along forest edges - 0.00 0.00 % Share of agricultural area under greening practices - 77.30 76.80 % Share of farms specialised in field cropping 30.00 32.00 - % Share of farms specialised in pigs and poultry 9.00 9.00 - % Share of farms specialised in grazing livestock 17.00 17.00 - % Share of farms specialised in horticulture 2.00 2.00 - % Share of farms specialised in permanent crops 17.00 19.00 - % Share of mixed farms 25.00 22.00 - % Structural diversity of EU farms 0.78 0.78 - index Note: Selection according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar I . Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development FADN and Eurostat. Table 4. CAP Pillar II EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. Indicator Year Unit 2015 2019 Forest or other wooded area under management contracts supporting biodiversity 0.06 0.51 % Agricultural land under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes 5.63 17.37 % Agricultural land under management contracts to improve water management 4.42 13.96 % Forestry land under management contracts to improve water management 0.04 0.25 % Agricultural land under management contracts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion 4.45 13.81 % Forestry land under management contracts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion 0.04 0.36 % Irrigated land switching to more efficient irrigation systems 0.01 0.44 % Livestock Unit concerned by investments in live-stock management in view of reducing GHG (Green House Gas) and/or ammonia emissions 0.08 0.93 % Agricultural land under management contracts targeting reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions 0.68 2.84 % Agricultural and forest land under management contracts contributing to carbon sequestration or conservation 0.30 1.06 % Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pilar II . Source: Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators . Figure 13. EU agricultural areas subject to environmental requirements, 2019 (million ha). Note: UAA -Utilised Agricultural Area; AECM- Agri-Environment-Climate Measures. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, CAP dashboard Environment and climate action (CTX_SEC_18_1, OID_05_3, OIH_01_1a, OIR_06_1.1) . Figure 14. Organic areas (1 000 ha) and number of producers. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, CAP dashboard Organic (CTX_SEC_19_1c & OIH_03_02b) .

Figure 15. Level of direct payment per hectare by class of intensification in the EU (EUR/ha), 2017-2019. Note: Farms are classified according to their level of intermediate costs* per hectare. The deciles are determined based on the population in such a way that there are equal numbers of represented farms in each decile. * Intermediate costs covers total specific costs (fertilizers, plant protection products, seeds, feed for livestock, other specific crop and livestock costs) and farming overheads not linked to a specific agricultural activity such as energy, contract work, machinery and buildings maintenance, water, insurance and other farming overheads. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. Figure 16. Breakdown of the main types of Ecological Focus Area, 2019. Note: before applying the weighting factors

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP dashboard, Biodiversity (RPI_13_4a, RPI_13_4b, RPI_13_4c, RPI_13_4d, RPI_13_4e, RPI_13_4f, RPI_13_4g, RPI_13_4h, RPI_13_4i, RPI_13_4j) . Figure 17. Evolution of areas funded under AECM sub-measure 10.1 'Payment for Agri-Environment -Climate Commitments' (million ha). Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer, ( OIR_06_1.1 ). Figure 18. Farmland birds indices in the EU (population index 2000=100), 2005-2019. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat, Environment statistics, Biodiversity ( online table env_bio3 ). Figure 19. Share of agricultural land in moderate to severe risk of soil erosion by water, 2016 (%). Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer ( CTX_ENV_42_2b ). Figure 20. Percentage of groundwater stations in the EU exceeding 50mg nitrates per litre, 2012-2016 and 2016-2019.

Impact General effect Meta-analysis reference Result Agroforestry Agroforestry has a positive effect on several environmental and climate impacts compared to agricultural land without trees. Agroforestry increased soil organic carbon stock by 18% (Shi et al, 2018), and was estimated to mitigate CO2 emissions with 27.2 ± 13.5 t CO2 equivalents ha-1 y-1, at least for the first 14 years after establishment (Kim et al, 2016). It was also found to increase significantly biodiversity (Torralba et al. 2016). Biodiversity 2 out of 2 meta-analyses showing positive results Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 230, 150-161. doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002 Agroforestry, compared to land without trees, resulted in a significant mean increase of biodiversity. Carbon sequestration 5 out of 5 meta-analyses showing positive results Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Agroforestry systems: Meta‐analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land degradation & development, 29(11), 3886-3897.https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136 Agroforestry, compared to land without trees, resulted in a mean increase of +18% in soil organic carbon stock GHG emissions 1 out of 1 meta-analysis showing positive results Kim, D. G., Kirschbaum, M. U., & Beedy, T. L. (2016). Carbon sequestration and net emissions of CH4 and N2O under agroforestry: Synthesizing available data and suggestions for future studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 226, 65-78. doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.011 Agroforestry, compared with agricultural land, was estimated to contribute to mitigating 27.2 ± 13.5 t CO2 equivalents ha-1 y-1 at least for the first 14 years after establishment. Organic farming Organic farming has a positive effect on several environmental and climate impacts per unit of agricultural land compared to conventional farming. The positive effects are on biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy use, eutrophication, nutrient loss, greenhouse gas emissions and pest and disease control. For example, organic farming systems increased biodiversity by 34% in both biotic abundance and biotic richness of the species studies in Smith et al. (2018). It also increased by 23.5% soil carbon stocks in arable crops, orchards and horticulture (Aguilera et al, 2013). Biodiversity 11 out of 13 meta-analysis showing positive results Smith, O.M., Cohen, A.L., Reganold, J.P., Jones, M.S., Orpet, R.J., Taylor, J.M., Thurman, J.H., Cornell, K.A., Olsson, R.L., Ge, Y., Kennedy, C.M., Crowder, D.W., 2020. Landscape context affects the sustainability of organic farming systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 2870–2878. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906909117 Organic farming systems, compared to conventional farming systems, resulted in a mean increase of 34% in both biotic (all species) abundance and biotic richness. Carbon sequestration 8 out of 8 meta-analysis showing positive results Aguilera, E; Lassaletta, L; Gattinger, A; Gimeno, BS., 2013. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT 168, 25-36. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003 Organic farming, compared to conventional farming in croplands (including arable crops, orchards and horticulture, but excluding permanent grassland), resulted in a mean increase by 23.5% in soil carbon stocks (kgC/ha). Note: The above examples were chosen among a large set of farming practices proposed and/or implemented by the Member States with CAP support (both commitments and investments), with the aim to reduce the environmental and/or climate change impacts of agriculture in the EU. These farming practices were analysed in several high-quality meta-analyses of large number of experimental trials assessing the practices effects on environment and climate outcomes. Therefore, the positive effects reported here are supported by robust scientific evidence. Note that these practices can have negative effects on production (e.g., there is very strong evidence that organic systems can lead to lower yield compared to conventional systems). Detailed results can be found in the iMAP wiki ( https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/IMAP/Farming+practices+fiches ) Source: Joint Research Centre.

Visuals for Chapter 3.3. Table 6: CAP Pillar II result indicators related to balance territorial development (EU-28). Indicator Year Unit 2015 2019 Agricultural holdings with RDP supported business development plan/investments for young farmers 0.06 1.21 % Jobs created in supported projects 10 17 210 N° Rural population covered by local development strategies 21 63 % Rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures 0.68 22 % Jobs created in supported projects (Leader) - 24 290 N° Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pilar II . Source: Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators . Figure 25. Average EU direct payments per hectare in areas facing constraints (EUR/ha), 2017-2019. Note: ANC = support to farms in areas facing natural or other specific constraints; FNVA = farm net value added per full time equivalent = amount available to remunerate all factors of production (land, labour and capital, both external and own factors); other RD: rural development measures other than ANC (including national top-ups and agri-environment-climate commitments, but excluding investments supports). Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data.