Table of contents 1.Introduction 1.1.Purpose and scope 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Description of the intervention and its objectives 2.2.Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of play 3.1.Description of the current situation 4.Method 4.1.Short description of methodology 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis 5.1.Effectiveness 5.2.Efficiency 5.3.Coherence 5.4.Relevance 5.5.EU Added Value 6.Conclusions 6.1.Effectiveness

6.2.Efficiency 6.3.Coherence 6.4.Relevance 6.5.EU added value 6.6.Lessons learned Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: Tables and figures complementing chapter 2 Annex 5: Benchmark: the situation prior to the 2014-2020 CAP Annex 6: Information complementing chapter 3 Annex 7: Tables and figures complementing chapter 5 Glossary AECMs Agri–environment-climate measures AIRs Annual implementation reports on the EAFRD AKIS Agricultural knowledge and innovation system ANCs areas facing natural or other specific constraints BPS Basic payment scheme CAP Common agricultural policy CMEF Common monitoring and evaluation framework EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EFA Ecological focus area EIP European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability ENRD European Network for Rural Development ESPG Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland EU European Union EUR Euro (currency of the Eurozone) FADN Farm Accountancy Data Network FAS Farm advisory service GAECs Good agricultural and environmental conditions GHG Greenhouse gas HNV High nature value IACS Integrated administration and control system NGO Non-governmental organisation RDP Rural development programme SAPS Single area payment scheme SFS Small farmers scheme SMRs Statutory management requirements UAA Utilised agriculture area 1.Introduction 1.1.Purpose and scope The 2013 reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) aimed to improve the targeting, efficiency and coherence of policy instruments by addressing the long-term objectives of (i) viable food production, (ii) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action and (iii) balanced territorial development (as set out in Article 110(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, the ‘Horizontal Regulation’) .

Article 110(5) of the Horizontal Regulation obliges the Commission to present, by 31 December 2021, an assessment of the CAP’s performance over the period 2014-2020. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the impact that relevant CAP instruments and measures have had on biodiversity, soil and water and therefore to determine the extent to which they have helped achieve the overarching policy objective of sustainably managing natural resources . The measures covered by the evaluation include the full spectrum of relevant instruments set out in the basic 2014-2020 CAP Regulations on Direct Payments , Rural Development , the Common Market Organisation and the Horizontal Regulation, which target the sustainable management of natural resources. The evaluation covers the geographical area of the European Union of 28 Member States, including the United Kingdom, as it was a member of the EU during the 2014-2020 period evaluated. The evaluation period corresponds to the implementation period of the 2014-2020 CAP, which started on 1 January 2015 for direct payments and 1 January 2014 for other measures. For analytical reasons, the evaluation uses the 2007-2013 period as reference. The evaluation covers all evaluation criteria, assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU value added of the measures covered by the evaluation. This Commission staff working document is primarily based on the external evaluation support studies on biodiversity, soil and water and the responses the Commission received to its corresponding public consultation. It also draws on existing evaluations, including on payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (‘greening’), on forestry measures under rural development and the impact of the CAP on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The evaluation takes into account additional analysis and complementary data from various sources, as referenced throughout the document. In the subsequent chapters, any reference to analyses, interviews, findings, etc. comes from the support studies, unless otherwise indicated. The evaluation contributes to the assessment of the CAP’s design and performance in addressing the objective of sustainably managing natural resources, to ensure it remains fit for purpose. Its findings will also provide information on the Commission’s support to the Member States in the ongoing development of their strategic plans for the next CAP period. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Description of the intervention and its objectives ·economic: food security and globalisation, a declining rate of productivity growth, price volatility, high input prices, deteriorating supply chain position of farmers; ·environmental: resource efficiency, soil and water quality, threats to biodiversity; ·territorial: demographic, socio-economic developments, challenges to rural areas. Thus, three general objectives were established for the 2014-2020 CAP: ·viable food production: with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability; ·sustainable management of natural resources and climate action: with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water; ·balanced territorial development: with a focus on rural employment, growth and poverty in rural areas. The objectives are targeted by the two pillars of the CAP: pillar I on direct payments and market measures, financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), and pillar II on rural development, financed through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The environmental aspects of the CAP have been gaining prominence with subsequent reforms, given the challenges facing the environment. Over the last few decades, agricultural habitats, and to a lesser extent habitats in forests, have been in decline, primarily due to the effects of habitat conversion, farms specialisation and agricultural production intensification. Agriculture and forestry activities have an impact on soil quality, organic matter content, soil biodiversity and the balance of nutrients in soils, and these activities result in soil erosion, compaction, pollution and salinisation. The EU agricultural sector is dependent on the availability of water resources, but the sector also significantly affects the ecological, chemical and quantitative status of waterbodies. Agriculture remains one of the most significant pressures affecting the quality, quantity and hydromorphologicial status of waterbodies throughout the EU.

The CAP objectives of sustainable management of natural resources and climate action were aimed to support the headline biodiversity target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restoring them as far as feasible. It responded in particular to target 3 of the biodiversity strategy to 2020 which aimed to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Biodiversity activities include maintenance and improvement of landscape elements and support for the conservation of natural reserves and wetlands. Sustainable soil management activities in agriculture and forestry such as soil conservation, amendment, restoration, fertilisation and health can help to protect, restore and improve soil quality and safeguard its natural functions. The sustainable management of water in agriculture is gaining even greater importance in the context of climate change; and activities to limit pesticide/plant protection product use, reduce water consumption, increase water use efficiency, reduce runoff of nutrients are necessary to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture on water. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development The 2013 CAP reform introduced a new combination of green support measures ( Figure 1 ) to address the pressures on natural resources and improve the environmental performance of EU agriculture. This new approach includes: ·a simplified and more targeted cross-compliance, representing the compulsory basic layer of environmental requirements and obligations from other legislation to be met in order to receive full CAP funding, including statutory management requirements (SMR) and good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAECs); ·green direct payments (‘greening’), accounting for 30% of the national direct payment amount and rewarding farmers for applying three obligatory agricultural practices, namely maintenance of permanent grassland, ecological focus areas and crop diversification; ·a greater focus of the second pillar on sustainability, with an obligation of at least 30% of the budget of each rural development programme reserved for voluntary measures beneficial for the environment and climate (including agri–environment-climate measures (AECMs), organic farming, Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments, forestry measures and investments). To help farmers implement appropriate solutions for their specific situations, these complementary policy instruments are accompanied by related training measures and other support from the farm advisory system as well as insights gained from the innovation partnership and applied research. The CAP provides a comprehensive framework for addressing the objective of sustainable management of natural resources, and considerable flexibility for Member States to implement the various measures (as demonstrated in chapter 3). Under cross-compliance, if farmers and other beneficiaries of CAP area-based support violate EU law on environmental, public and animal health, as well as animal welfare, their CAP support may be reduced. The scope of cross-compliance includes ‘statutory management requirements’ (SMRs), which are obligations covered by EU directives and regulations, such as the Directives on nitrates (Council Directive 91/676/EEC), on the conservation of wild birds (Directive 2009/147/EC) and on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). The scope also includes standards for the good agricultural and environmental condition of land (GAECs), covering water, soil and carbon stock, biodiversity and landscape, as well as the minimum level of maintenance. As for the aim of the greening obligations under pillar I, the crop diversification measure was aimed at improving soil quality; the maintenance of permanent grassland was aimed at supporting carbon sequestration and protecting biodiversity (habitats) in case of environmentally sensitive grasslands located in Natura 2000 areas; and dedicating 5% of arable land to areas beneficial for biodiversity (ecological focus areas - EFAs) was aimed at safeguarding and improving biodiversity on farms. Pillar II objectives contributing to the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action (referred to as ‘priorities for rural development’) include: ·restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems (priority 4), with focus areas 4A (restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity), 4B (improving water management), and 4C (preventing soil erosion and improving soil management); ·a resource-efficient, climate-resilient economy (priority 5), with focus areas 5A (increasing efficiency in water use by agriculture), 5D (reducing nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agriculture), and 5E (fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry). Table 1 gives an overview of pillar II measures that are relevant for supporting the sustainable management of biodiversity, soil and water, among other objectives. MEASURES BRIEF DESCRIPTION M10: Agri-environment-climate (AECMs) This measure aims to preserve and promote ‘agricultural practices that make a positive contribution to the environment and climate’, by compensating beneficiaries for all or part of the additional costs and income foregone. M11: Organic farming The measure provides support to farmers that convert to or maintain organic farming practices and methods. M12: Natura 2000 & Water Framework Directive The measure provides annual per hectare compensation payments to farmers and foresters for the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the disadvantages of implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives or the Water Framework Directive. M13: Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints (ANC) The measure provides support for farmers to pursue their farming activity in mountain areas and other areas facing natural or other specific constraints (as designated in Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013). The support compensates farmers for the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the constraints to agricultural production. M04:: Investments in physical assets The investment grant is designed to improve the economic and environmental performance of holdings. This support covers investments that improve the overall performance and sustainability of farms, including non-productive investments linked to the achievement of agri-environment-climate objectives; etc. M08: Investments in forest areas Support under this measure concerns, among others, afforestation and creation of woodland, establishment of agroforestry systems, investments improving forest ecosystems’ resilience and environmental value as well as their mitigation potential. M15: forest-environment This measure supports operations consisting of one or more forest-environment and climate commitments going beyond the relevant mandatory requirements established by the national forestry act or other relevant national law. M01: Knowledge transfer and information actions The measure aims to give farmers, forest holders, persons engaged in the food sector and rural small and medium-sized enterprises improved access to technical and economic knowledge and information. It should increase their competitiveness and improve their environmental performance, etc. M02: Advisory services Farm advisory services help farmers and other actors of rural areas to improve the sustainable management and overall performance of their holding (modernisation, competitiveness, sectoral integration, market orientation, innovation, etc.). M16: Cooperation This measure promotes various forms of cooperation involving at least two entities, including support for the establishment and operation of operational groups of the European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability. M07: Basic services and village renewal in rural areas Support under this measure concerns small-scale infrastructure and covers, among others, management plans relating to Natura 2000 sites and other areas of high nature value, studies and investments associated with the maintenance, restoration and upgrading of high nature value sites, including environmental awareness actions, increasing the environmental performance of the settlement. The agri-environment-climate measure (AECM) is a key policy measure used in favour of biodiversity and landscapes, compensating farmers (and sometimes other land managers) for the additional costs and income losses they incur when they voluntarily undertake agricultural practices that deliver environmental benefits (beyond the beneficiary’s already existing obligations). The practices funded by AECM are very wide-ranging and include cultivation practices, farm management, irrigation/ drainage, management of inputs, management of landscape, habitats, grassland, high nature value farming, etc. AECM practices have more demanding and targeted management requirements (e.g. use of appropriate mixes of species) than what is required under cross-compliance, the system of green direct payments and any other sources of relevant obligations.

A number of CAP instruments and measures not designed to address the natural resource objective have indirect implications on sustainable management. These include area-based decoupled direct payments, coupled payments and the operational programmes for fruits and vegetables under the common market organisation (Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013). The aim of basic direct payments (BPS/SAPS) for the management of natural resources is not stated clearly in the legislation, but they help keep afloat less profitable holdings that have practices beneficial for the environment (e.g. highly diversified holdings, extensive grazing systems, etc.). Basic direct payments can be of different amounts depending on the Member State/ region and the historical level of entitlements. Voluntary coupled support is based on fixed areas, type of crops grown, and yield and/or numbers of animals, and can be provided to sectors facing particular situations where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental or social reasons. The sectors most supported include beef and veal, dairy products, sheep and goat meat, and protein crops. Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 set up a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, establishing support measures among other things, for the olive, fruit and vegetables, and wine sectors. In accordance with the Regulation, operational programmes for the fruit and vegetable sector need to include two or more environmental actions, and at least 10% of the expenditure under operational programmes has to cover environmental actions. Outside the CAP, a body of EU environmental legislation and policy instruments (not specific to agriculture) set objectives and requirements for the sustainable management of natural resources (by setting objectives and requirements), in line with the 7th environmental action programme that guided the EU’s environment policy until 2020. Regarding biodiversity, the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) are the cornerstone of the EU’s legal framework for the conservation and restoration of natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora. Additionally, the EU biodiversity strategy to 202019 aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by supporting the EU Nature Directives’ full implementation and by increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and increasing biodiversity. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is the most comprehensive and overarching instrument of EU water policy. It aims to protect all surface and groundwater bodies, including transitional and coastal waters, and addresses all pressures (including agriculture). Its aim is to achieve overall good ecological status (or its potential) and good chemical status for all surface water bodies, and good chemical and good quantitative status for all groundwater bodies by 2015, or by justified extension to 2027. Preventing deterioration is also a key aim of the Directive. Other directives with relevance for agriculture that affect mainly water quality are the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC), the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC), the EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC), the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC), the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) and the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) for water quantity. There is no specific EU legal framework for soil protection. It is addressed through the soil thematic strategy but in a non-binding way. The soil thematic strategy aims to protect and sustainably use soils by preventing further soil degradation, preserving its functions and restoring degraded soils. The soil thematic strategy will be updated in 2021. Other pieces of EU legislation setting requirements relevant for soil include the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation (EU) 2018/841, the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) and regulations on fertilisers, mercury and plant protection products. Figure 2 presents the intervention logic of the relevant CAP measures addressing the impact of the CAP on natural resources. The measures are described in Heading 3, along with the state of play for their implementation.

2.2.Baseline and points of comparison The Commission legal proposals for the 2013 CAP reform were accompanied by an impact assessment, which described the situation preceding the reform and included medium-term projections comparing no policy change (status quo / baseline) with policy alternatives. However, the medium-term projections are insufficient as a baseline for the purposes of this evaluation, as they do not correspond to the final outcome of the reform after negotiations with the European Parliament and Council. As there were no other objective and quantitative projections that could have been used as a baseline, the points of comparison are based on the situation before the implementation of the 2014-2020 CAP, using the most recent data up to 2013, presented in Annex 5: Benchmark: the situation prior to the 2014-2020 CAP . A further proxy for the performance of the CAP are the fulfilment of target indicators set for relevant focus areas of rural development programmes (presented in chapter 5). Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 3.Implementation / state of play 3.1.Description of the current situation

In 2019, 151 million hectares (84%) of all EU agricultural land were supported under the direct payment scheme and therefore subject to the requirements for compliance with SMRs and the relevant practices that Member States have established under GAECs. Also in 2019, 142.3 million hectares (80%) of agricultural land were declared by farmers applying at least one greening obligation, 26.7 million hectares (15%) were supported under payment for agri-environment-climate commitments and 9.4 million hectares (5%) were under organic farming. 3.1.1.Good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAECs) Member States have translated the core obligations of the GAECs in different ways, fitting their own circumstances. GAECs directly addressing water Under GAEC 1 (buffer strips), all Member States set a requirement for establishing buffer strips along watercourses/waterbodies with no application of fertilisers. The minimum width spanned from less than 1 meter to more than 20 meters, with the strong majority of Member States setting buffer strips with a width ranging from 1 to 5 meters. Member States differed in how they defined watercourse/water body where buffer strips are required, from more generic to specific definitions and lists. Flanders-Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, France and Spain also supplemented the basic requirement with a ban on the use of plant protection products on buffer strips, and Austria, Greece, Italy and Portugal banned tillage and/or cultivation. GAEC 2 (irrigation) links CAP payments and the procedure defined by Member States for obtaining an authorisation/permit to use water for irrigation. The procedure (and therefore GAEC 2) is not applicable in Ireland and Luxembourg. Under GAEC 3 (groundwater), which is applied in all Member States, CAP payments are linked to the provisions on the direct/indirect discharge of the listed dangerous substances into groundwater. GAECs targeting soil and soil organic matter Under GAEC 4 (soil cover), all Member States require minimum soil cover. There is a particular focus on areas with a high risk of erosion, and there are time-specific rules. Member States have differed in the way they identify land under the obligation: the majority used only a general specification (agricultural area, grasslands, parcels), while Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Latvia, Malta and Poland specified arable land and France, Germany and Spain fallow land. The approach for soil cover also differed. Only Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia) and Czechia required crop residues/stubble. and only Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden required permanent grassland/grass/green cover. On the other hand, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia allowed farmers to choose their soil cover from one of the two options mentioned. Germany and France set additional rules prohibiting bare fallow or restricting the use of plant protection products and fertilisers. Under GAEC 5 (minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion), the main measures set by Member States tackled land with high slopes usually defined as more than a 10% slope. The majority of Member States have cultivation requirements (transversal to the contour of the slope and minimal tillage). However, Wallonia (Belgium), Czechia, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia limit crops to be planted (crops with small canopy, e.g. potato), and Flanders (Belgium), Denmark and France ban ploughing during a certain period (generally winter). All Member States implement the main measure of the ban on stubble burning under GAEC 6 (maintenance of soil organic matter). In order to improve the soil carbon content, a few Member States go beyond this core requirement by requiring (i) a soil analysis with possible corrective actions (Luxembourg), (ii) soil coverage with nitrogen-fixing crops (Czech Republic), (iii) the incorporation of crop residues (Cyprus), (iv) crop rotation (Slovenia; Malta) and (v) a ban on cultivation in species-rich and semi-natural habitats. GAECs targeting biodiversity GAEC 7 (landscape) targets the retention of landscape features, and includes a ban on cutting woody landscape features and measures for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive alien plants. In terms of retention of landscape features, Member States differed as to the type and number of features subject to protection. The majority (25) of Member States selected mainly the nine landscape features suggested in the legislation (hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, group of trees, isolated trees, field margins, terraces and traditional stonewalls) that are considered as essential to preserve biodiversity. However, Latvia and Austria selected only elements that are not on the suggested list such as protected trees and natural monuments, and the Netherlands did not select any element for protection. 3.1.2.Statutory management requirements (SMRs) Under SMR 1 (nitrates), Member States are required to establish a programme of actions which is compulsory in nitrate vulnerable zones and whose items are verified under cross-compliance. The measures that Member States must implement in these areas are those already included in the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice set out in the Nitrates Directive and other measures such as limiting fertilizer application (mineral and organic), taking into account crop needs, all nitrogen inputs and soil nitrogen supply and setting a maximum amount of livestock manure that can be applied. Member States are therefore required to identify specific vulnerable zones and set up and operate action programmes. SMR 2 (wild birds) and SMR 3 (habitats) target biodiversity, as Member States are under the obligation to protect certain landscape features under the Birds and Habitats Directive. As such, these SMRs help to enforce farm-level compliance with national or regional legal restrictions that protect certain habitats and species covered by the Nature Directives. SMR 10 (plant protection products) targets water and soil protection, as it requires farmers to apply the principles of good plant protection practices (set out under Article 55 of Regulation 1107/2009) and comply with market authorisations on the use of plant protection products. 3.1.3.Greening The greening measures target in particular soil quality (crop diversification), biodiversity (ecological focus area (EFA) and environmentally sensitive permanent grassland) and the preservation of carbon stocks in agricultural soils (permanent grassland, environmentally sensitive permanent grassland). No specific measure directly addresses water quality or quantity. However, specifications for some of the EFA elements consider the impact on and/or contribute to improved water management, i.e. buffer strips, catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops, ban on the use of pesticides on fallow land and productive EFA areas. Further impacts are also linked to preservation of permanent grasslands or positive effects stemming from greater crop diversity. The greening rules do not apply to farmers who opted for the small farmer’s scheme (2.1% of UAA in 2019), for administrative and proportionality reasons. Organic farmers (7.9% of UAA in 2019) automatically receive a greening payment for their farm, as they are considered to provide environmental benefits by the nature of their work.

Crop diversification In 2019, 74% of the EU arable land fell under the crop diversification obligation (77.7 million hectares). Of the farms applying the crop diversification, 87% of arable land was under the obligation to have at least three crops and the remaining 13% under the obligation to have at least two crops, though the figures differ at Member State level depending on the average size of the arable land of farms. While 6 Member States (Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Latvia, Slovakia, United Kingdom) had 95% or more of arable land under three crop obligation, 3 Member States had around half (Slovenia, Finland) or more (Greece) of their arable land under two crops. In the case of Malta, farms had only a two crop rule. Permanent grassland In 2019, 51.7 million hectares of permanent grassland were declared under the direct payment scheme and the area of permanent grassland under the greening ratio obligation amounted to 46.7 million hectares. The figures under the greening ratio do not include the exempted areas of the small farmer scheme and organic producers. The overall share of permanent grassland in agricultural areas under greening was 31.6% in 2019, ranging from 2.4% in Cyprus (2019) to 89.9% in Ireland (2018). The reconversion mechanism was activated four times in two Member States (Cyprus: 2015 and 2016, Estonia: 2016 and 2018) to reverse a more than 5% drop in the annual ratio against the 2015 reference ratio. Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG) ESPG designation entitles stricter protection of grassland parcels in order to meet the objectives under the Natura 2000 Directives. In 2019, of 16.6 million hectares of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 areas, 9.3 million hectares (56%) were designated as ESPG and 5.7 million hectares (34%) declared by farmers. This translates into 17% of all permanent grassland in EU designated as ESPG (ranging from 0.2% in Portugal to just over 57% in Cyprus). These figures reflect the differences in the delineation/selection of Natura 2000 areas when implementing the underlying Nature and Birds Directives and the differences in Member States’ decisions to designate permanent grassland within the Natura areas. Eight Member States (Bulgaria, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden) designated all permanent grasslands within Natura 2000 as ESPG, while others designated only a proportion. The lowest proportion of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 areas designated as ESPG in 2019 was in Portugal (1.3%) and Ireland (4.0%). ESPG declared by farmers ranged from 0.1% of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 in Portugal and 2% in Austria to 100% in Greece and in Sweden. Four Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Italy, Latvia) also designate permanent grassland outside Natura 2000 areas as ESPG, adding protection to an additional 0.6% of all EU permanent grasslands. Ecological focus area (EFA) obligation In 2019, 69% of EU arable land fell under the EFA obligation (72.4 million hectares). The selection of EFA areas and features differed across Member States, with some opening the whole range of EFA types and others only a narrow range. A major change from 2018 onwards came from the amendments to the Omnibus Regulation where three EFA types were added and weighting factors increased for nitrogen-fixing crops and short rotation coppice. A major change also came from the amendments to the delegated legislation that restructured some landscape features’ EFA types and banned the use of plant protection products on fallow land and productive EFA types. In 2019, 9.5 million hectares were declared EFA areas, representing 13.7% of arable land under obligation. Land lying fallow and land lying fallow melliferous Landscape features, terraces Buffer strips, field margins, strips along forest edges Afforested areas, agroforestry, Short rotation coppice, Miscanthus, Silphium Catch crops Nitrogen- fixing crops Total 2015 2 508 000 160 000 96 000 74 000 3 952 000 3 774 000 10 561 000 Share in total EFA 24% 1.5% 1% 1% 37% 36% 100% 2019 1 851 000 182 000 96 000 38 000 5 171 000 2 208 000 9 542 000 Share in total EFA 19% 1.9% 1% 0.4% 54% 23% 100% *Structure further to changes introduced by Omnibus Regulation and the 2017 delegated legislation In terms of uptake by farmers, the most frequently declared EFA types were those linked to productive or potentially productive EFAs: nitrogen-fixing crops, catch crops and land lying fallow. In 2019 catch crops areas represented just over half and the nitrogen-fixing crops areas just below a quarter of all. The share of fallow land was a fifth of all EFA areas. The EFA types that are most valuable for the environment (i.e. landscape features) account for less than 2% of the area under EFA, whereas the EFA type that provides the lowest benefits for biodiversity, nitrogen-fixing crops, is one of the types that is frequently chosen (representing 23% of the area). Analysis of the EFA composition in Member State in 2020 ( Figure 3 ) revealed the following patterns: ·5 Member States had at least 50% of fallow land, of which 2 had more than 75%; ·10 Member States had at least 50% of catch crops of which 4 had more than 75%; ·Altogether, 15 Member States had more than 80% of EFAs dedicated to nitrogen-fixing crops or catch crops; ·In 6 Member States, landscape features, buffer and other strips and forestry-related areas accounted for more than 3% of all EFAs.

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Member States´ notifications After applying the weighting factors, nitrogen-fixing crops and catch crops account for above half of the total weighted EFAs in 2019, representing 6-7% of the arable land under the obligation and contributing to overshooting the required 5% at farm level. Land lying fallow and land lying fallow melliferous Landscape features, terraces Buffer strips, field margins, strips along forest edges Afforested areas, agroforestry, Short rotation coppice, Miscanthus, Silphium Catch crops Nitrogen Total 2015 2 508 000 323 000 128 000 58 000 1 186 000 2 642 000 6 842 000 Share in total EFA 37% 4.7% 2% 1% 17% 39% 100% 2019 1 864 000 425 000 212 000 29 000 1 552 000 2 208 000 6 287 000 Share in total EFA 30% 6.8% 3% 0.5% 25% 35% 100% *Structure further to changes introduced by the Omnibus Regulation and the 2017 delegated legislation Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development Land lying fallow and land lying fallow melliferous Landscape features, terraces Buffer strips, field margins, strips along forest edges Afforested areas, agroforestry, Short rotation coppice, Miscanthus, Silphium Catch crops Nitrogen fixing crops Total 2015 3.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 1.6% 3.5% 9.1% 2019 2.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.04% 2.1% 3.0% 8.7% *Structure further to changes introduced by Omnibus Regulation and the 2017 delegated legislation Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 3.1.4.Rural development measures (supported by EAFRD) The rural development policy of the CAP is implemented over a seven-year period through rural development programmes (RDP) designed by national or regional managing authorities. A total of 118 RDPs are implemented in the 28 Member States, with EUR 99.6 billion in funding over the 2014-2020 period. After co-funding by national, regional and private resources is added, the rural development policy of the CAP has a total of EUR 161 billion in funding. Priority 4 Priority 5 Share of the measure programmed under priorities 4 and 5 Measures EUR million % EUR million % M01 Knowledge transfer/information 363 1% 125 1% 34% M02 Advisory services 305 0.4% 62 0.6% 46% M04 Investments in physical assets 2 119 3% 4 767 50% 20% M06 Farm business and development 0% 146 2% 2% M07 Basic services and village renewal 1 398 2% 258 3% 16% M08 Forest investments 3 055 4% 2 487 26% 92% M10 Agri-environment-climate 24 021 35% 1 193 12% 100% M11 Organic farming 11 549 17% 131 1% 100% M12 Natura 2000 and WFD 808 1% 7 0% 100% M13 Areas facing natural constraints 24 226 35% 221 2% 97% M15 Forest-environment-climate 286 0.4% 3 0% 100% M16 Cooperation 427 1% 208 2% 25% Total 68 558 100% 9 608 100% 52% Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development At EU level in the period 2014-2020, Member States allocated 46% (almost 69 billion euros) of their rural development budgets to restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems (priority 4) and over 5% (9 billion euros) to a resource-efficient, climate-resilient economy (priority 5). This amounts to a total of almost 77 billion euros, i.e. 51% of all rural development funding spent by Member States. At the end of September 2020, the EU-28 had executed 76% of the planned public expenditure under priority 4 and 46% under priority 5. Under priority 4, support for ANC (M13) accounted for 35% of all spending, with AECMs (M10) a further 35%, organic farming 17% and forestry measures 5%. Under priority 5, the main measures are physical investments (M4) with 50%, forestry measures (M8) with 26% and AECM with 12% of total allocations. This spending on AECM and organic farming has resulted in covering more than 40 million hectares for AECM and organic farming (23% of UAA), with a number of different practices implemented to address the environmental impact of the CAP.

Conservation of grassland Conservation of landscape elements Crop diversification & rotation Organic farming Maximum livestock density Other limitations of pesticide use Intermediate crop/cover crops/catch crops Buffer strips along superficial water bodies Erosion protection on permanent crops Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 3.1.5.Other measures Knowledge exchange plays a key role in helping farmers and rural communities meet the challenges of natural resources, mainly through knowledge transfer and information actions (M1), advisory services (M2) and cooperation (M16). At present, all countries in the European Union have to have a farm advisory system (FAS). The FAS helps farmers to better understand the EU rules for environment, public and animal health, animal welfare and the good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC). The FAS itself is not an instrument (in practice it may be a telephone helpdesk or a website with important information) and does not provide funding. Several Member States and regions provide support from EAFRD (M2-Advisory services) to facilitate the implementation of the FAS (Belgium- Flanders, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and UK-Scotland). The European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) was set up to encourage innovation in agriculture and rural communities. Thanks to innovative solutions created through the interaction of a mix of relevant competent actors, including the end-users of the outcomes, the EIP speeds up innovation. Of the more than 3 000 projects planned for 2014-2020, more than 2 000 were already finished or running at the end of 2021, and extra calls are planned. The operational group projects of the EIP follow the interactive innovation model and 65% of them work on environment-climate issues, of which 42% on biodiversity, soil and water and another 10% on landscape/landscape management. Around the (farmer) partners in the operational group, a circle of up to 100 farmers are co-learning peer-to-peer by attending the project’s activities. Some Member States even started using operational groups as a test bed for preparing agri-environmental measures with great success. It works as an early promotion for a ready to use measure and - more importantly - creates co-ownership and trust in the measure for the future beneficiaries. The inclusion of advisors in operational group projects strengthens the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) by helping set up and implement innovative projects. The inclusion and environmental training of impartial and trusted advisors within the AKIS should have an important impact on farmers’ environmental behaviour. 3.1.6.Reporting on infringements/problems To enforce cross-compliance, beneficiaries who do not comply fully with requirements and standards of cross-compliance have to pay a penalty, which is applied as percentages to their overall CAP payments Farmers who do not respect greening rules receive less money. Such reductions reflect the number of hectares identified as non-compliant, taking into account the nature of the greening requirement. Since 2017, national governments can impose administrative penalties on top of the reduction in greening payments. Administrative penalties have to be proportionate, depending on the severity and scope of the non-compliance. Details of the control/sanctions system is provided in Annex 6: Information complementing chapter 3 . On the basis of 2019 data, infringement rates with no sanction for cross-compliance remained marginal (0-1%) in the overwhelming majority of Member States/regions. In a very few cases, a more considerable rate was found: ·SMR 1 (nitrates): 11% in the UK, 9% in Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany), 8% in Estonia; ·SMR 2 (wild birds): 13% in La Rioja (Spain), 10% Asturias (Spain), 9% in Navarra (Spain); ·GAEC 2 (irrigation): 18% in Wallonia (Belgium); ·GAEC 3 (groundwater): 4 to 17% in various regions of Italy; ·GAEC 4 (soil cover): 6-14% in select regions of Spain; ·GAEC 5 (soil erosion): 18% in Flanders (Belgium).

The error rate for direct payments was very low during the 2014-2020 period, under 2% every year. The adjusted error rate for the total relevant expenditure for all RDP measures was 2.92% for the 2014-2020 period, with approximately half of all paying agencies (71 in total) producing an error rate above 2%. In 2019, measures relevant for the sustainable management of natural resources, notably M10 (AECM), M11 (organic farming), M12 (Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive) and M13 (ANC) showed a very low error rate of 2.55% for the EU as a whole. However, in some cases a more considerable (commitments) error rate was observed: ·M10 (AECM): above 5% in 15 regions (of Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, Greece, Croatia, the Netherlands and Slovakia); ·M11 (Organic farming): above 5% in 5 regions (of Bulgaria, Germany, Spain and Slovakia); ·M12 (Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive): above 5% in 2 regions (of Spain and Luxembourg); ·M13 (ANC): above 5% in 1 region (of Italy). 4.Method The evaluation is primarily based on the external evaluation support studies on biodiversity, soil and water and the responses to the corresponding public consultation. It also draws on the evaluations on payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, on forestry measures under rural development and the impact of the CAP on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The evaluation is also informed by additional analysis and complementary data from various sources, including publications by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors. 4.1.Short description of methodology The methodological approach combines theoretical and empirical analysis and includes a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods to deal with the complexity and the wide range of topics under the evaluation. The starting point of the external studies on biodiversity, soil and water was the development of the intervention logic for the CAP instruments and measures to identify their potential direct and indirect impacts on the three themes. The evaluation tools and methods included, but were not limited to: documentary research, literature reviews, statistical data analysis, case studies surveys and interviews with stakeholders as part of the three studies, public consultation, etc. The collected data was analysed through both quantitative and qualitative methods. The databases utilised in the evaluation study included: annual implementation reports on the EAFRD (AIRs), the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS), common monitoring and evaluation framework indicators (CMEF), the European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), Eurostat agri-environmental indicators (AEI), the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), the Farm Structure Survey (FSS), the Land Use and Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS), the Water Information System for Europe (WISE), etc. The indicators used included among others, context, output, result and target indicators from the CMEF for biodiversity, soil, water and the environment in general, the Streamlining European Biodiversity (SEBI for biodiversity), indicators from the Sustainable Forest Managements (SFM), WISE, etc.. The case studies selected for the three studies provide insight into the implementation and effect of the instruments and measures, covering as much as possible the variety of contexts across the EU. Case studies have been selected in such a way that the relevant water, soil and biodiversity-related issues can be covered efficiently and clearly, representing the diversity of scenarios of the EU. The case studies included, but were not limited to: stakeholder consultations through semi-structured interviews, documentary research including literature reviews, statistical data collection at national, regional and local level, and complementary interviews. The selection criteria and resulting case studies are presented in Annex 3: Methods and analytical models . A public consultation was conducted on the European Commission’s EU Survey platform between 9 July and 22 October 2020, collecting 183 responses from 25 Member States and Israel. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings The evaluation is subject to a number of limitations that impact the analysis and its robustness. Despite a careful selection of case studies to reflect the variety of situations across the EU, the case studies do not provide a fully representative sample. This can be explained by the large territorial differences in terms of natural resources and the high variability of Member State implementation choices with regard to the CAP instruments and measures addressing natural resources,. Processes involving natural resources are long-term phenomena whose trends cannot be observed on the short timescale of the CAP programming period, which has a limited availability of relevant data. Furthermore, a forensic assessment of the CAP’s impact on biodiversity, soil and water is challenging when other factors are acting in parallel, including the increase in population and urban sprawl, economic development, pollution, invasive species and climate change. The effects of other EU and/or national policies and the indirect effects of other CAP instruments and measures not designed and implemented to address the sustainable management of natural resources are not sufficiently taken into consideration, if at all. On a different level, the selection of crops and crop varieties are affected by demand and the variability of climatic conditions, factors not considered in this analysis.

Data is not always available to quantify the effects of CAP measures and instruments, due to discrepancies in the time period or the geographical scale to be considered. This seriously affects the ability to establish and identify the net impact results of CAP policies and to establish true counterfactuals accurately for any period of time studied. Despite the extensive monitoring of the CAP and data collection from EU farms, the available databases have limitations for assessing the quantitative effects of the CAP on natural resources at farm or at local level. Additionally, and given that all the evaluation studies on natural resources use to some extent the FADN database, several limitations arise from the use of this database. These limitations may affect the possibility to run a complete statistical analysis and to monitor environmental impacts: ·The sample varies over time to avoid a bias towards more performing farms. This limits the possibility to follow changes in farm management over time. ·FADN data does not make it possible to distinguish beneficiaries of each rural development measure. ·FADN includes a limited number of environmental indicators. ·In accordance with FADN data protection rules and to ensure representativeness, samples with less than 15 farms have not been analysed, limiting the analysis of very targeted groups of farms. As a result of the above, in the analysis, some types of farms and agricultural practices are over-represented. The aggregated output data under restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems (priority 4) for rural development makes it impossible to record detailed budget and operations by single farming practice. Therefore their environmental effects cannot be disentangled. Little information was provided regarding the impact on soil productivity, given the unclear definition of ‘soil productivity’ that can relate to either soil fertility or yields. The concrete impact of CAP measures and instruments on soil fertility can be observed only in the long term. While the implementation reports of the Water Framework Directive contain information from Member States on the modification of the waterbodies and the main pressures, this information is only available for large areas (corresponding to water basins), and therefore limits analysis of water use at lower (disaggregated) levels. Over the period of the evaluation studies, the methodological approaches were reviewed and adapted if necessary to ensure an appropriate analysis of those data which were available. Additionally, where possible, information has been triangulated across multiple sources, and the partial nature of available information is acknowledged. Nevertheless, by extending the analytical framework with complementary sources, the evaluation provides a comprehensive assessment of the impact of relevant CAP instruments and measures on addressing sustainable management of natural resources, providing useful case study examples on good practices and informed qualitative analysis, leading to useful conclusions and lessons learned (including the need for sufficient and timely indicators). 5.Analysis 5.1.Effectiveness The assessment of how effective the CAP instruments and measures were in addressing water, biodiversity and soil objectives is based on the evaluation support studies and replies to the public consultation. Updated data, analysis and findings from other sources as referenced complemented this information. Implementation choices having a major impact on results The CAP provides Member States with flexibility in fine-tuning cross-compliance and in the type of measures they adopt. They also have flexibility with the budget allocated to these measures under pillar II. In broad terms, the implementation choices that Member States made suggest that the environment was not their top priority. Instead, their choices have primarily been driven by socio-economic, financial and administrative factors, which has limited the CAP’s potential to address the sustainable management of natural resources. Member State choices were also driven by their experience of implementing the CAP in the 2007-2013 period. As for the instruments and measures they chose to implement in order to address the sustainable management of natural resources, they needed a specific approach suited to local conditions. This was justifiable, given the diverse environmental conditions and challenges across Member States and regions. On the basis of Member States selected for case studies in the study on biodiversity, it appears that at a strategic level, the priorities identified by Member States during their strategic planning documents for biodiversity (e.g. prioritised action frameworks and national biodiversity strategic action plans) are relatively well aligned and reflected in their rural development plans. However, when implementing the CAP, Member States chose instruments and measures that were not well aligned with these priorities. They failed to make use of the full range of CAP measures that would have been suited to meet these priorities. In particular, the analysis of the local implementation choices in the case study areas in the study on soil reveals that Member States and managing authorities made implementation choices that were unevenly aligned with soil threats at local level.

In Member States’ decisions, soil quality was given less importance than other environmental concerns (i.e. biodiversity and water which benefit from binding EU objectives and dedicated legislation or services). This was due to the absence of a specific soil directive or EU soil legislation, and the lack of common EU definitions, targets and thresholds. Involving water authorities in the design process of the RDPs, notably through the co-funding of rural development measures, played a significant role in the implementation of measures supporting practices beneficial to the sustainable management of water. The existence of EU legislation on water, including legally binding targets, may have contributed to this prioritisation. For farmers, the choice whether to engage in biodiversity, water and/or soil quality-focused measures was mostly driven (when given the choice) by a combination of economic and financial factors and by a convenient (simple) policy design and degree of similarity with existing land management practices. All evaluation support studies showed that, to a lesser extent, environmental awareness and market developments also played a role, though minor, in the implementation choices that farmers made. Nevertheless, with farmers’ increased awareness of environmental issues, the studies have shown farmers adopting more environmental practices and measures. The lack of technical knowledge and advice (e.g. on alternative practices, relevant CAP support) appears as a key factor hindering the implementation of management practices addressing soil quality (but possibly common to biodiversity and water as well). As mentioned by the farm advisers surveyed in the case studies, the environmental and climate motivations were secondary reasons pushing farmers to implement the following RDP measures: investments (M4), organic farming (M11) and AECMs (M10). The interviews (from case studies in Germany, France and Austria) revealed that water-related measures are (financially) less attractive for intensive farming systems, which are generally located in regions facing water problems. It also means that CAP measures that could help to address water problems are rarely implemented precisely in those areas where they are most needed. The public consultation conducted for the evaluation enquired about the respondents’ perception of the CAP’s general contribution to the EU’s environmental objectives. Replies did not yield a clear and general assessment. A majority of respondents (business associations and companies gave the highest rates of approval; public authorities were neutral; NGOs, researchers and EU citizens were negative) considered that the CAP helped to achieve the EU’s environmental objectives ‘to a very large extent’, ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to some extent’. However, the perception varies across the different objectives. Depending on the topic, 14% to 32% of the respondents believe that the CAP contributes ‘to a very large extent’ or ‘to a large extent’ to environmental objectives, whereas 36% to 45% believe that it contributes ‘to a very small extent’ or ‘not at all’. Biodiversity and soil received the highest rate of positive replies (very large or large extent) and climate adaptation and GHG emissions reduction the highest rate of negative replies (not at all). Environmental objectives and the CAP Source: public consultation14 5.1.1.Effectiveness of CAP instruments and measures contributing to the sustainable management of natural resources The CAP aims to provide a basic and extensive ‘baseline protection’, with 84% of the total EU utilised agriculture area (UAA) subject to mandatory cross-compliance, with greening obligations providing additional environmental protection covering 80% of UAA, voluntary commitments under pillar II adding more targeted environmental provisions on 15% of UAA for AECM (M10) and 5% supporting organic farming (M11). The area subject to sustainable management commitments has increased over the evaluation period. Agricultural land subject to cross-compliance concerned 151 million hectares in 2019. Agricultural land declared by farmers applying at least one greening obligation amounted to 142.3 million hectares in 2019. The area supported under payment for agri-environment-climate commitments (M10) covered 26.7 million hectares in 2019, and the area supported under payment for organic farming (M11) increased to 9.4 million hectares in 2019 (while the total public expenditure under M11 doubled from EUR 938.8 million in 2015 to over EUR 2 billion in 2019). The CAP support for conversion and maintenance of organic farming involved 14.3 million hectares in 2019 (+28% from 2015). Source: CMEF indicators C.18 Agricultural area (CTX_SEC_18_1), OIH_01_1a, OID_05_3, OIR_06_1.1 and OIR_06_1.2. 5.1.1.1.Cross-compliance Cross-compliance aims to ensure that beneficiaries of CAP implement mandatory basic standards and requirements by sanctioning non-compliance. As such, cross-compliance is considered to be an effective tool for influencing elementary land use and crop/livestock management practices beneficial for natural resources, e.g. through the creation and maintenance of buffer strips, the appropriate disposal of hazardous substances, the use of catch and cover crops, etc. In 2019, 84% of the EU-28 agricultural area was subject to cross-compliance. Data suggest that the compliance rate of farmers with GAECs varies only marginally with respect to the specific conditions. But it is estimated to be high, as only 1 to 4% of farmers have been found to be non-compliant. By maximising the number of farmers under horizontal measures, elementary practices that promote sustainable management practices and sustainable land use spread more, therefore setting a regulatory and environmental baseline in the EU.

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on the water evaluation support study As for the actual effects of cross-compliance, the studies on biodiversity, soil and water point mainly to indirect effects, with some exceptions. GAEC 1 – Establishment of buffer strips along watercourses GAEC 1 on the implementation of buffer strips has the potential to effectively protect water from pollution but also to protect riparian margins. However, the way in which Member States implement this rule does not provide sufficient protection to waterbodies and does not always prevent pollution from nutrients, soil erosion and pesticides getting into watercourses, even if some Member States have enforced stricter rules. It only provides a sufficient degree of protection when both chemical and fertiliser application is forbidden (e.g. in Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland), and buffer strips are covered by vegetation and are wide enough to prevent pollutants transfer into water. GAEC 1 can have positive effects by decreasing the risk of soil and bank erosion, and reducing leaching and runoff, which also affect the chemical status of water. GAEC 2 – Compliance with authorisation procedures for abstraction of water for irrigation GAEC 2 is less effective because only a few Member States actually verify whether the appropriate means are there to measure the volumes of water that farmers withdraw. Member States check whether farmers have obtained a water licence, and eight case study Member States from the water evaluation support study verify farmers’ compliance with the authorisation order (Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Finland). This is the main instrument that promotes land uses and practices that are beneficial for reducing water abstraction through water abstraction control, and it was assessed as being effective in guaranteeing farmers’ compliance with the authorisation order for water abstraction. GAEC 3 – Protection of groundwater against pollution GAEC 3 targets water pollution by prohibiting the direct or indirect discharge of some substances in water. In addition to this requirement, some Member States verify other aspects under this GAEC, such as the livestock manure storage distance from water (in the case studies from Finland, France and Germany under the water evaluation support study, where this measure was the most effective), the proper disposal of pollutants and the absence of leakage storage tanks (in Germany). According to the case studies, this GAEC’s implementation had a direct and positive effect on fostering land use and practices beneficial for reducing pollutants transferred by runoff and leakage, by reducing nutrients, organic wastes and chemicals applied on land. Improving the quality of water also indirectly affected the quality of the soil by halting its deterioration, though this effect is very difficult to measure. GAEC 4 – Minimum soil cover GAEC 4 directly affects the sustainable management of natural resources by promoting soil cover between the main crops in nitrate vulnerable zones but also by enforcing sufficient coverage on fallow land or after a ploughing or the removal of permanent crops, thus reducing soil erosion. It effectively contributes to the sustainable management of water in the context of crop and livestock management by influencing soil structure and helps to reduce soil and bank erosion and decrease the risks of runoff and leaching. And while this also has positive effects on the sustainable management of soil, the evaluation support study on soil at EU level found that in practice the effects on soil were limited, despite GAEC 4’s potential. Some local positive effects limiting soil erosion and limiting the loss of soil organic matter linked to the use of soil cover were shown in some of the case studies from the study on soil, but with marginal effects, especially in erosion ‘hotspots’. This GAEC can also encourage the planting of cover crops, though indirectly. This has led to improved management by farmers and increased productivity. GAEC 5 – Land management to limit soil erosion Limiting erosion is key for soil quality, and GAEC 5 can encourage practices and land use beneficial for soil sustainability. Sustainable management of the nutrient balance (through maintenance and the creation of landscape elements) and practices limiting soil compaction (reduced tillage and no-tillage, but marginal effect) were found to reduce soil erosion overall and therefore be positive. Although this GAEC’s effect could not be quantified, the interviews in the case studies revealed positive effects reported locally (e.g. Greece has implemented standards within GAEC 5 by prohibiting surface irrigation on plots with >10% slopes). GAEC 5 also affected water retention, though indirectly, as Member States can forbid ploughing in specific contexts (depending on the slope or climatic conditions) and sanction any activities likely to cause soil erosion (e.g. overgrazing in Finland). In practice, requirements under this GAEC are quite different in the case study Member States. GAEC 6 – Maintenance of soil organic matter GAEC 6 refers only to the absence of any burning of crop residues. On its effectiveness, even though the measure banned burning on all EU arable land, it induced no significant changes in soil management practices in the case study areas, except in Greece. It had marginal effects on promoting (i) less tillage and no tillage, (ii) the maintenance/incorporation of crop residues and organic matter and (iii) the application of organic amendments (compost, manure), which ultimately had positive effects on soil organic matter. By promoting the maintenance of soil organic matter, this measure has indirect effects on water quality and quantity, because the conservation of soil coverage and organic matter reduces soil and bank erosion and decreases the risks of runoff and leaching. This measure also seeks or can also be expected to provide benefits for soil fauna, such as earthworms. The evaluation on climate change and GHG emissions found that compared to the 2007-2013 CAP, the number of Member States adopting additional requirements for the maintenance of soil organic matter decreased. However, part of these requirements (which include: restrictions on entering land when it is waterlogged or frozen; use of crop rotations; not growing successive crops with a high soil carbon demand; application and/or monitoring of organic matter; soil testing; and stubble management) are reflected in the 2014-2020 CAP, in the crop diversification obligation under greening. GAEC 7 – Retention of landscape features GAEC 7 addresses biodiversity through the retention of landscape features and includes (since 2013) a ban on cutting hedges and trees during the bird breeding and rearing season, and optional measures for avoiding invasive plant species. It requires the maintenance of certain landscape features that are expected to have a positive effect on both water quantity and quality. However, the level of requirement depends on the number of landscape features (hedges, ponds, trees in lines, etc.) protected and on the strictness of the measure (i.e. on the possibility to remove some features provided they receive special authorisation).

The case studies of the biodiversity study show that in a number of Member States, implementation choices reduced the measure’s environmental benefits. The case studies point to a wide variation in uptake, with protection most commonly applied to groups of trees (7 Member States out of 10), hedges and isolated trees (6 Member States) and trees in a line and terraces (5 Member States); and the only requirement in the Netherlands was for farmers to obtain a permit before felling trees. According to the same evaluation, in theory, SMR 2 and SMR 3 should make the obligation to protect certain landscape features under the Birds and Habitats Directives more binding, although evidence that this is achieved in practice is lacking. SMR 1 – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources SMR 1 is linked to compliance with the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC). It concerns areas in nitrate vulnerable zones and is aimed at ensuring appropriate application of (manure and mineral) fertilisers. The area concerned varies between Member States. The SMR has a positive effect on reducing inputs (nutrients, organic wastes and chemicals) applied on land, thus increasing water quality. It also resulted in catch crops, and to a lesser extent nitrogen-fixing crops, having to be planted in all nitrate vulnerable zones. No direct effect on soil and biodiversity has been proven. SMRs 2 and 3 - Birds and Habitats Directives SMRs 2 and 3 make the obligation to protect certain landscape features under the Birds and Habitats Directives more binding. There is evidence from the case studies that some Member States are not adequately and/or clearly incorporating the legal requirements of the relevant provisions of the Directives into their cross-compliance rules. More specifically, several Member States were not using cross-compliance to require action against priority invasive alien species; and from the case study countries, only three (Hungary, Latvia and Ireland) have chosen to introduce cross-compliance to protect against invasive species, in accordance with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. SMR 10 – Plant protection products SMR 10 is aimed at the protection of groundwater from contamination by plant-protection products. The only element verified in all the case study Member States is the use of market-authorised products. Besides this, many aspects (up to 17 in Austria) are checked with direct effects (e.g. appropriate means to avoid products drifting outside the treated area) or indirect effects (e.g. bee protection rules) on water protection. SMR 10 therefore seems to play only a minor role in reducing groundwater contamination. 5.1.1.2.Greening The evaluation on greening demonstrated that the impact of greening measures on the environment and climate is highly dependent on Member States’ and farmers implementation choices. Although the greening measures have made a small contribution to improving the environmental performance of farming, far more could be done to improve their performance. This could be done notably by changing the rules governing the operation of the measures and putting greater emphasis in Member States on using the greening measures in combination with cross-compliance and rural development measures. Indeed, greening measures can potentially exert a positive impact on the sustainable management of natural resources due to their wide application (they covered over 78% of agricultural land in 2018) and their deterrence effect in case of non-compliance. However, the studies on biodiversity, soil and water found limited evidence to this effect. Ecological focus areas (EFAs) In 2019, 69% of arable land in the EU was under an EFA obligation. Between 2015 and 2019, the number of hectares of actual EFAs declined from 10.5 million to 9.5 million (-9.4%). The composition of EFAs in arable land changed during that five-year period, with a 2.4 percentage point (pp) decrease in catch crops or green cover (to 2.1%) and reductions in nitrogen-fixing crops (-2 pp to 3%). However, land lying fallow remained unchanged (at 2.6%) and landscape features increased only marginally (+0.1 pp to 0.6%). Buffer strips, strips along forest edges and afforested areas also remained marginal. The evaluation on greening found that EFA elements can potentially benefit not just biodiversity, their main objective, but also water, soils and climate. Member States were given considerable flexibility to choose the pool of EFA options available to farmers, and whether and how to lay down rules for their structure and management. The European Commission concluded in its 2017 report on the implementation of EFA that despite the considerable flexibility, Member States do not use this discretion to maximise the policy’s environmental and climate benefits, but rather strive to implement greening in a way which minimises the burden on themselves and farmers. In particular, the predominance of productive EFAs, together with insufficient management requirements, reduces the potential benefits of greening for biodiversity. The same conclusion was made by the European Court of Auditors in its Special Report 21/2017. As a follow up, the Commission introduced in 2018 provisions to enhance the environmental delivery of greening, including a ban of pesticides and fertiliser on EFA. Three of the most widely declared EFA elements in 2019 were: catch and cover crops (accounting for 55%), nitrogen-fixing crops (23%) and fallow area (18%). The percentage of EFAs covered by nitrogen-fixing crops decreased from 2017, possibly due to the ban on pesticides for these areas introduced in 2018. The evaluation on greening shows that for the EU-28, the EFA element that potentially can have the greatest net positive environmental and climate impact is land lying fallow, with landscape features (i.e. hedges, trees, ponds and ditches), field margins, buffer strips and multiannual nitrogen-fixing forage crops also having the potential of yielding net benefits. However, few benefits are expected from certain EFA elements because of the lack of appropriate management requirements (e.g. to prevent pesticide use or nitrogen-leaching by use of nitrogen-fixing crops) and the low level of uptake (e.g. the non-productive options). Nonetheless, some Member States have put in place requirements to bolster the environmental performance of EFAs (e.g. rules on the post-harvest management of nitrogen-fixing crops in Spain and Germany, and the EFA equivalence scheme under AECMs in Austria). In addition, where the EFA measure has helped slow the decline of multiannual forage legumes, this is expected to be beneficial, e.g. in Spain, where traditionally cultivated legumes provide suitable habitats for a wide range of species, including wild bees and other pollinators, and some mammals and birds that are threatened in the EU (even if this example is not representative for the EU). On the other hand, there are some examples where the EFA measure may be reinforcing the use of certain types of management that result in net negative impacts on biodiversity in certain situations (e.g. the replacement of overwinter stubble with cover crop mixes over winter). The evaluation on greening also found that the EFA requirement’s net impact on biodiversity could be much greater if farmers were to coordinate types and spatial arrangements to form larger habitat patches (as larger areas tend to be more resilient, hold more viable populations and have greater species richness) and/or mosaics of complementary habitats. This might also be beneficial from a soil and water management perspective, depending on the location of the EFA elements. The support study on biodiversity considers that despite the low level of fallow land in arable land, there is some indication that the measure may have had a beneficial effect, due to the stabilisation/reversal of area in 18 Member States, following a negative trend in EU fallow area over 2007-2014 (resulting in a 31% loss). Some of the largest increases in fallow land occurred in Spain. It was one of five Member States where fallow land comprised more than 50% of the EFA area, and where declines in threatened bird species had been linked to previous declines in fallow land. In addition, the EFA measure has helped to slow the decline of multiannual fodder crops in some Member States, such as Spain where the reappearance of traditionally cultivated legumes has been reported (e.g. alfalfa, vetches, peas and beans). This provides foraging habitat for a wide variety of species, including wild bees and other pollinators, and some threatened mammals in the EU. However, the potential benefits of the EFA measure are not fully realised, as the most commonly declared EFA elements (i.e. catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops) have low biodiversity benefits for most farmland species, other than soil fauna, even if they can reduce water pollution, which benefits aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. Nevertheless, the ban on using pesticides on these productive areas that has been in place since 2018 has significantly improved the benefit of EFAs for biodiversity.

The study on soil found that although EFAs had very little impact on the establishment and maintenance of landscape features, the ban on using plant protection products (SMR 10) on EFAs had a positive effect on soil management practices and the reduction of soil pollution. In interviews with local authorities and farmers representatives in the case study areas, the majority considered that the EFA measure did not result in significant changes in farm management practices or in the choice of soil cover. Nevertheless, technical advisers underlined that the EFA measure helps to establish relevant cover crops and raise farmers’ awareness of the positive effect of intercrops and has also started to improve the mix of species used in the cover. According to the study on water, most of the EFA elements can influence land use to improve water quality (i.e. landscape features, fallow land, nitrogen-fixing crops, short-rotation coppices and forest areas) and also positively impact water quantity (aside from nitrogen-fixing crops and short-rotation coppice). According to the interviewees in the case studies, the effects of EFAs on water quality are rather positive in all case study Member States and highly positive in Aragon (Spain), Croatia and Apulia (Italy). Crop diversification In 2016, 23.5% of farms produced at least 3 crops (-1.0 pp from 2013), with 10.3% of farms producing 3 crops (-0.6 pp) and 13.2% more than 3 crops (-0.4 pp). The number of hectares of arable land declared by farmers subject to crop diversification was 77.7 million hectares in 2019, which corresponds to 74% of arable land in 2019. About 12% of arable land was exempted from the diversification measures (e.g. organic farms, fallow land or grassland). The evaluation on greening established that by increasing the number of crops that are cultivated, crop diversification not only improves soil quality but may also have some effects on biodiversity (particularly soil biodiversity), water and climate. These effects depend on the types of crops grown and when they are grown (e.g. spring-sown versus autumn-sown), with greater environmental and climate benefits achieved where multi-year crop rotations are put in place. In terms of net effects, the measure probably benefits biodiversity in the most intensive arable landscapes, especially those dominated by maize or winter wheat. But overall the impact is minor due to the low percentage of additional land diversified. The assessment of this effect, however, does not take into account the effect of slowing the trend towards greater monoculture. There is some indication that a shift from winter to spring crops has been partly encouraged – to some extent - by this measure and this would be beneficial for biodiversity, particularly if stubble is left in the ground over winter. Protection of soil from erosion may have improved in countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands where maize has frequently been replaced by crops providing better soil cover, e.g. wheat, barley and other cereals, or by legumes. Although this may not always be the case if shorter growing seasons for legumes such as peas leave the soil without cover for long or where maize has been replaced with another row crop such as sunflowers, as in France. The greatest environmental impact is likely to have been in Spain, since it accounts for the largest area of land on which changes in cropping have taken place. Since the main changes were the replacement of cereal crops by legumes, benefits for soil and water quality and GHG emissions are likely to have occurred (the latter two as a result of reduced applications of nitrogen fertiliser). The case studies under the study on biodiversity did not produce evidence of any considerable impacts of the crop diversification requirement, which resulted in different crops being cultivated on just 0.8% of the arable area in the 10 case study Member States. However, the evaluation on climate change and GHG emissions found that while crop diversification required changes of crop on less than 1% of EU arable land, it encouraged farmers to maintain diversification and notably had impact in areas with high levels of mono-cropping. According to the evaluation support study on greening, most farmers who had to diversify mainly planted leguminous plants instead of cereals, and they mainly did it in rotation; both practices were identified as being positive for adaptation by favouring resilience to pests and droughts and improving soil structure. The study on soil found that crop diversification with the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops had positive, albeit indirect, effects on the soil organic matter (and increased soil productivity as well). The study on water also found indirect benefits for water protection (reducing the need for pesticides, increasing organic matter, etc.). But it also established that while catch and cover crops have many positive effects on water-related pressure, they are already promoted by other instruments (e.g. SMR 1), which therefore limits the additional effect of crop diversification. On the other hand, among the case study Member States that decided to introduce crop-diversification equivalence schemes, two (Poland and Austria) decided to implement more demanding crop diversification measures through AECMs, which led to improved effects. Permanent grassland In 2019, EU-28 total utilised agricultural area (UAA) stood at 179.4 million hectares (an increase of over 1 million from 2012) of which 34.3% was permanent grassland and meadow (+1.1 percentage points). The evaluation on greening states that the environmental and climate benefits of maintaining the area of permanent grassland by limiting declines in the ratio of permanent grassland to total agricultural area to less than 5% depend on the location and type of grassland maintained and the extent to which the grassland that remains in place is ploughed or reseeded. The changes in the definition and eligibility of permanent grassland that were made in the 2013 CAP led to changes in the eligible area of permanent grassland under protection and the calculation of the ratio. Where prior authorisation processes are in place, greater environmental and climate benefits are likely to accrue since these provide the opportunity to assess the environmental and climate impacts of proposed grassland removals and proceed accordingly. The permanent grassland ratio requirement aimed at halting the loss of grassland. However, as of 2019, the comparison ratio registered negative values in 9 Member States and 10 regions of the four Member States that made regional calculations, but none exceeded the 5% threshold. In most cases, though, the changes in national/regional annual ratios under greening and in the ‘comparison ratio’ resulted from a reallocation of permanent grassland areas within the terms of the ratio rather than their actual decrease. Instead, the figures reflected the combined effects of a substantial increase of/conversion to organic permanent grassland and, to a lesser extent, of decreasing permanent grassland under the small farmers scheme. It was also affected by changes to agricultural areas. While 7 Member States deemed such situations sufficient to adapt the reference ratio, others did not do so, resulting in lower or negative figures for the ‘comparison ratio’. Between 2015 and 2019, permanent grassland increased in 17 Member States, with a relative +/- 1% stabilisation in 8 Member States and a decrease of more than 1% in 2 Member States (Estonia and the UK). The mechanism of reconversion was activated four times in 2 Member States (Cyprus, in 2015 and 2016, and Estonia, in 2016 and 2018) to reverse the more than 5% drop in the annual ratio. The case studies under the studies on biodiversity, soil and water found that the permanent grassland measure had positive effects on water quantity and quality. However, these case studies also acknowledged that management practices can be detrimental to water quality (e.g. ploughing of grasslands increases the risk of erosion and runoff and reduces their organic matter content). On its effects on soil, the ban on ploughing was paramount for acting on not only carbon storage but also reducing soil erosion. Biodiversity benefits were difficult to measure accurately due to the definition of permanent grassland, along with the ratios being calculated mostly at national level (maintaining the ratio alone provides limited biodiversity benefits as it can mask significant losses in some areas). In countries where this ratio has been calculated at regional level, it has limited overall permanent grassland losses to some degree. Besides the positive effect of protecting permanent grassland, Natura 2000 zones include areas of high value to nature, but also areas with carbon-rich soil and wetlands, which are two important aspects for water protection, retention and soil erosion. Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG) The evaluation on greening considers that by protecting large areas of permanent grassland within the Natura 2000 network from being ploughed up, the ESPG measure has the potential to result in substantial and wide environmental benefits, given the importance of these areas for biodiversity, soils, water and climate objectives. This measure therefore has the potential to complement the protection under the Birds and Habitats Directives. However, the potential benefits of the ESPG measure are limited by the low area of sensitive grasslands designated in many countries. The evidence of how Member States have designated ESPG suggests that there are different interpretations of what constitutes ‘the environmentally most sensitive areas’ which ‘need strict protection’ under the Direct Payments Regulation. The low levels of ESPG designation in some Member States suggest that there is scope to extend its coverage and increase its impact, particularly in light of the important challenge of achieving good conservation status of these valuable grasslands to which the ESPG measure should contribute. There is also the potential for wide environmental benefits from the designation of ESPG beyond Natura 2000 sites. However, such impacts are currently very limited because the option to designate ESPG outside Natura 2000 sites was only taken up by 5 Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Italy, Latvia and Wales(UK)), of which only Czechia designated a significant amount. The combined area was only equivalent to about 2 % of the total EU area of Annex I habitats outside the network, and much of the area is already protected to some extent under national legislation through the provisions of the Nature Directives (in particular Article 6 of the Habitats Directive). Evidence from the case studies carried out under the evaluation on greening indicates that ESPG designation is nonetheless adding some value within and outside Natura 2000 sites as a means of complementing the implementation and enforcement of the Directives in Member States and helping to reduce the continuing pressure from agriculture. From the studies on biodiversity, soil and water it can be derived that the ESPG measure is most effective in Member States that have a high rate of ESPG on total permanent grassland (Italy, Romania), coupled with the stringent controls associated with the CAP and advice through farm advisory services on areas subject to the ESPG requirements.

5.1.1.3.Area-based rural development measures Agri-environment-climate measure –AECM (M10) In 2018, 14% of EU utilised agricultural area received AECM support. Over 2015-2018, 12-15 million hectares were concerned by AECM support for maintenance of high nature value arable and grassland systems, the introduction of extensive grazing practices, the conversion of arable land to grassland and the creation and upkeep of ecological features (e.g. field margins, buffer areas, flower strips, hedgerows, trees). Management of fertilisers and pesticides affected approximately 6-9 million hectares and cultivation practices (soil cover, ploughing, etc.) between 3-5 million hectares. Areas supported for farm management practices (manure management, crop rotation, etc.) have grown steadily from 2 to 5 million hectares between 2015 and 2018. There was common agreement by interviewees in case studies of the various evaluation support studies that AECM promote practices beneficial for natural resources. AECM target all three focus areas of priority 4 – biodiversity, water and soil, depending on the needs identified in the individual RDPs. Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development Source: Joint Research Centre compilation Figure 8 presents the top 30 farm practices supported by AECMs and organic farming in the RDPs in terms of area share for the 2014-2020 period (and 2007-2013 for comparison). In 2014-2020, the main farm practices beneficial to natural resources supported by AECM relate to limiting livestock density (and pasturing), the conservation of grassland, no or reduced use of pesticides, crop diversification and crop rotation, grass cutting restrictions, nutrient management, cover crops and the conservation of landscape features. The biggest change in the two periods relates to the reduced share of areas supported under grassland conservation (-20 pp), maximum livestock density (-17% pp), maximum mineral fertilizer and nitrogen input (-16 pp each), as well as increased areas supported under organic farming (+13 pp), grass cutting restrictions and restrictions on pesticide use (+11 pp each). Extensive livestock farming, buffer strips, catch and cover crops and crop residual management are beneficial to water quality and quantitative management. However, nutrient management plans are beneficial for water quality only. Crop diversification and crop rotation are beneficial to soil management. AECM are also used to target support for wild pollinators’ habitats, to maintain existing semi-natural habitats and landscape features and to create new habitats. Organic farming (M11) The EU organic area significantly increased between 2015 and 2019, with a more than 75% increase in the area supported under organic farming, and reached a share of 5% of UAA in 2019. There is considerable variation across Member States in the area of farmland planned for conversion to or maintenance under organic farming, from less than 1% in three Member States (Bulgaria, Malta, Romania) to more than 10% in eight (Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden), and over 25% in Austria. Interviewees in case study Member States under the various support studies agreed that support to organic farming contributed significantly to the development of organic farming and therefore to a change in management practices. This support had a positive impact on the quality of water both directly (e.g. no synthetic pesticides used) and to some extent indirectly and was also beneficial to quantitative management (e.g. crop diversification, increased soil coverage, etc.). Organic farming contributes to the development of biological pest control and precision farming, thereby reducing the use of fertilisers and pesticides (Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Austria, Romania, Finland), and also contributes to the conservation or soil incorporation of crop residuals (Croatia, Italy, Austria, Poland, Romania, Finland). The measure also provides measurable benefits for biodiversity, particularly in more intensively farmed landscapes and especially in relation to relatively common and generalist species. Overall, the studies find that the measure has positive impacts on water and soil quality by promoting the reduction of inputs (fertilisers, pesticides) applied on lands compared to conventional farming and by promoting practices to preserve soil structure and organic matter in soil. This in turn has a positive impact on reducing erosion, runoff and leaching (through sustainable management). Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments (M12) A limited number of Member States assessed in the case studies of the evaluation support studies (Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria) used this measure, and it was only in Germany that this measure had a significant positive effect on practices relevant to water protection. Complementary evidence is found in the synthesis of the evaluation of the enhanced AIR, according to which the measure significantly contributes to carbon conservation and sequestration in some Member States. The benefits to biodiversity arise as an indirect result of the rules and management plans being more environmentally ambitious than they otherwise would have been without the measure. In any case, despite its potential, the measure’s actual effects are limited because of its low level of implementation. However, areas supported under Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments (M12) increased from 1.1 million hectares in 2015 to 1.6 million hectares (+55%) in 2019. Overall, Natura 2000 areas (including natural grassland) accounted for 1% of UAA in 2018 (stable compared to 2011). Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints – ANCs (M13)

Some 96.6% of expenditures, corresponding to 78.9% of the beneficiaries supported through this measure, were nominally allocated to restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems (priority 4) over the 2015-2018 period. However, the benefits for the sustainable management of natural resources are difficult to establish, as the measure is generally not directly associated with specific management requirements. The European Court of Auditors considered that the majority of payments for ANCs are not linked to environmental objectives and are no more beneficial to farmland biodiversity than the basic payment scheme. However, if land abandonment (one of the main threats to biodiversity and leading to its loss) can be avoided, the specific local biodiversity can be preserved. ANC payments can clearly help to avoid land abandonment and therefore contribute to biodiversity objectives. As recognised in the study on the future of EU livestock, mountain grasslands are often characterised by greater plant and animal biodiversity than the wooded and shrubby formations of these same landscapes, and grazing keeps shrub cover under control. The study found that livestock, especially ruminants, can have a positive impact on biodiversity and soil carbon because they enable the maintenance of permanent grassland and hedges and an optimised use of manure. As such, ANC payments have a clear impact on biodiversity, because they maintain livestock in mountain areas. Investments in physical assets (M4) The study on water found that the measure helped to implement sustainable practices on water by promoting new management practices (e.g. minimal soil cultivation, soil incorporation of crop residuals) or by promoting investment in irrigation and water collection infrastructure. The result was that farmers were able to invest in specific equipment to limit water pollution but also to better manage the quantity of water. The study found that the measure positively affected the use of water in crop and livestock management practices. But it also had indirect negative effects on water quality, given that the support for artificial drainage (in the Netherlands and Poland) contributed to pesticides and nitrates being directly carried into surface water. The measure can also have drawbacks in the form of investments that increase water use (e.g. investments in bigger irrigation systems lead to increased water abstraction). Consequently, the measure’s impact on other natural resources is also minimal but positive because of the indirect effect that reducing soil desalinisation has on improving water quality. Investments in forest area development (M8) and forest-environment and climate services and forest conservation (M15) Despite the potential of forest and agro-forestry having considerable positive effects on the sustainable management of natural resources, including the prevention of soil erosion and allowing water retention in the soil, these measures were less effective because of a low uptake and a limited focus on measures addressing biodiversity objectives (mostly targeting the protection and enhancement of social and environmental ecosystem services in forests). Only 2 of the 10 case studies in the study on soil demonstrated forest management practices sustainable for soil (e.g. in Czechia, support for introducing supplementary species in forests with important anti-erosion functions). At EU level, investments in forest area (M8) reach 2.5% of the UAA and forest services (M15) 0.3%. Therefore, the measures had little impact on soil management. 5.1.1.4.Knowledge, cooperation and innovation Knowledge transfer and information actions (M1 )and advisory farm management and relief services (M2) The case studies in the study on water revealed that increasing farmers’ awareness and promoting knowledge transfer and information actions are important aspects to achieve water quality and quantity objectives. All case study Member States programmed knowledge transfer and information actions, although less than 25% of the supported actions and training days targeted the relevant priority (4) and focus areas (5D and 5E), and only 1.1% targeted focus area 5A on water quantity. However, stakeholders from the case studies mentioned that even when training does not focus on water savings or on water quality, these subjects are often addressed directly (e.g. during training on economic performance to limit input use) or indirectly (e.g. during training on conservation tillage, since these practices can affect soil organic carbon content with effects on both water quantity and quantity). The study on soil found that the measure had strong effects on promoting soil sustainable practices in those Member States where sustainable soil management activities were implemented. Support for advisory services benefited 5.5% of EU farmers. As advisory services have adopted a broader focus on biodiversity, like support for AECM schemes, they have helped increase uptake and effectiveness to improve the status of all natural resources. The study on water pointed to positive effects on water when farmers were advised to use machinery limiting soil compaction, to engage in precision farming and manage fertilisers and pesticides with more efficient equipment, to apply a nutrient management plan and to maintain or create buffer strips (in Finland). In other Member States, effects on water have been limited due to delays in the measure’s implementation (Spain, Italy, Romania), or its administrative complexity (France, Germany). The study on soil revealed that the measure’s effects on soil were limited at the EU level, and depended on the number of Member States undertaking projects with soil management as a main objective. Where implemented, the measure was considered effective in helping to address various soil threats (e.g. erosion, compaction, soil organic content). The case studies in the study on biodiversity support the findings mentioned above on both measures and confirm that these measures help the relevant measures (cross-compliance, AECM, organic farming) have greater impact. But they also confirm the various limitations linked to implementation. FAS – Farm advisory system According to the study on water, the FAS effectively contributed to the sustainable management of water in half of the case study Member States (Spain-Aragon, Croatia, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland). In those Member States (except Poland), the FAS focused on natural resources issues, with potential positive effects on the chemical status of water, and especially on water quantity status. The FAS also made farmers more aware of their obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Advice to farmers is crucial, especially when farmers need to significantly change their practices (e.g. to a