REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the ecological focus area obligation under the green direct payment scheme
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, allocation of land, area of holding, biodiversity, environmental impact, environmental protection, land use, single payment scheme

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.3.2017  COM(2017) 152 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the ecological focus area obligation under the green direct payment scheme {SWD(2017) 121 final}  
 
 
1.   

Introduction 

The 2013 reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) introduced a green direct payment 
scheme1  (‘greening’).  The  aim  was  to  further  improve  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources linked to farming through payments for practices beneficial to the environment and 
the  climate.  Besides  crop  diversification  and  the  maintenance  of  permanent  grassland, 
greening  requires  farmers  to  reserve  5 %  of  their  arable  land  for  ecological  focus  areas 
(EFAs). 

Focusing  on  2015  and  2016,  this  report  fulfils  a  legal  requirement  for  the  Commission2  to 
examine  progress  in  implementing  the  EFA  obligation.  While  it  also  shares  preliminary 
observations  on  EFAs’  potential  environmental  effects  based  on  choices  made  by  Member 
States  and  farmers,  it  is  important  to  stress  that  this  is  not  a  measurement  of  real 
environmental impacts. 

The  report  updates  and  expands  on  some  aspects  of  the  2016  review  of  greening  after  one 
year  of  application,3  conducted  as  part  of  the  Commission’s  REFIT  programme4.  The  2016 
review  examined  greening’s  impact  on  production  potential,  the  level  playing  field  and 
considered  various  simplification  aspects.  As  a  follow-up,  the  Commission  put  forward 
several changes to secondary greening legislation5, focusing mostly on EFAs6. These aimed to 
streamline  and  clarify  the  relevant  rules  while  increasing  their  environmental  effect.  They 
should become applicable at the latest in 20187 (as of March 20178 the changes are not yet in 
force). 

This  report will contribute to  the wider evaluation of greening, including the environmental 
benefits of EFAs, due for completion by the end of 2017 or early 20189. It will also feed into 
the report on the CAP monitoring and evaluation due in 201810. The observations in Chapter 3 
of this report do not prejudge the evaluation of greening, which will be comprehensive on all 
its aspects, including EFAs. 

1.1.  The EFA obligation 

Many  valuable  habitats  and  the  biodiversity  they  encourage  rely  on  farming  systems. 
However,  the  efforts  to  safeguard  this  biodiversity  are  not  recognised  by  markets  and 
therefore  not  reflected  in  the  prices  farmers  receive  for  their  produce.  While  preserving 
biodiversity  depends  on  appropriate  management  practices,  these  practices  —  driven  by 
competitive  pressures  —  have  experienced  change,  with  increasing  specialisation  and 
intensification  of  production  in  some  areas  and  land  abandonment  in  others.  This  creates 

1 Articles 43 to 47 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. 
2 Idem, Article 46(1) third paragraph. 
3 SWD (2016) 218 final. 
4 Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme. 
5 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. 
6 Commission Delegated Regulation of 15.2.2017, C(2017)735. 
7 With an option for Member States to implement them in 2017. 
8 European Parliament and Council scrutiny ongoing on the legislative amendments. 
9 See the 2017 Management Plan — Agriculture and Rural Development; 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/management-plan-2017-agriculture-and-rural-development_en. 
10 Under Article 110(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
pressures on biodiversity, has detrimental effects on soil, water and climate but also puts the 
agricultural sector’s long-term production potential at risk. 

to  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources, 

The EFA requirement’s objective is ‘in particular, […] to safeguard and improve biodiversity 
on farms’11. With the other greening obligations, it forms part of the existing CAP and other 
EU  policies  dedicated 
including 
biodiversity12.  Part  of  the  CAP’s  first  pillar,  greening  aims  to  ensure  that  all  EU  farmers 
receiving  income  support  deliver  environmental  and  climate  benefits  as  part  of  their 
agricultural  activity.  Practices  required  under  the  EFA  obligation  are  meant,  like  the  other 
greening  practices,  to  be  simple,  generalised,  non-contractual  and  annual.  Farmers  are 
rewarded for undertaking biodiversity-friendly practices, which does not necessarily entail a 
change  in  every  farm.  Where  these  practices  are  already  applied,  the  EFA  obligation 
guarantees  their  maintenance  against  the  competitive  pressures  facing  farmers.  Where  they 
are not present, they have to be put in place. 

To comply with the EFA requirement, farmers with arable land exceeding 15 ha must ensure 
that  at  least  5 %  is  an  ‘ecological  focus  area’  dedicated  to  ecologically  beneficial  elements, 
selected from a menu of ‘EFA types’ drawn up by their national authorities from a common 
EU list. This EU list covers a broad range of features or areas targeting biodiversity directly, 
such as fallow land or landscape features, or indirectly, by reducing the use of inputs and/or 
improving  soil  protection,  such  as  catch  crops  or  nitrogen-fixing  crops13.  EFA  areas  are 
calculated using weighting factors that reflect each EFA characteristic and its importance for 
biodiversity.  The  weighting  factors  range  from  0.3  (e.g.  for  catch  crops)  and  0.7  (nitrogen-
fixing crops) to 2 (hedges). 

Member States have several options to tailor the EFA types: for example, when selecting their 
national  list,  they  can  build  on  practices  that  farmers  already  apply,  and/or  supplement 
requirements  (e.g.  production  methods)  for  some  EFAs  to  ensure  or  improve  their 
effectiveness. Under certain conditions, they may also offer their farmers several alternative 
EFAs on the basis of ‘equivalence’. Some farmers are exempted from this requirement based 
e.g. on their farm’s location (‘forest exemption’), size or land use. 

Going beyond cross-compliance, EFA practices can be supplemented by voluntary measures 
under rural development programmes (RDPs) that finance more demanding activities targeted 
at specific environmental and climate-related needs. 

1.2.  Methodology, data sources and limitations 

This  report  is  based  on  the  data  available  on  the  current  implementation  of  EFA.  While  it 
includes preliminary observations of potential environmental effects, it does not constitute an 
evaluation per se as defined in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines14. 

To  assess  the  state  of  play  on  implementation,  the  report  uses  the  yearly  decisions  on  the 
choices  of  EFA  types  provided  to  the  Commission  by  Member  State  authorities15.  

11 Recital 44 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. 
12 Among others, the Mid-Term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, COM(2015) 478 final. 
13 EFA types are stated in Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and further specified in Article 45 of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 639/2014. 
14 See COM(2015) 215 final and SWD(2015) 111 final. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
These decisions are available for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The report also uses data on farmers’ 
actual EFA choices (‘uptake data’) based on farmers’ declarations (‘declared areas’) for 2015 
and 2016 and notified per region by Member States16. 

The  quality  of  the  Commission’s  analysis  depends  on  timeliness  and  completeness  of  the 
reporting.  This  is  limited  as  some  notifications  are  incomplete  or  still  lacking.  The  EFA 
uptake data for 2015 is available for all Member States except France; data for 2016 has been 
submitted by just 19 Member States17. 

The observations on potential environmental effects do not aim to measure real impacts, but 
rather  consist  of  simulations  applying  pre-determined  values  assigned  to  available  choices, 
relying on: 

  a study by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre18 (JRC) using an ‘EFA calculator’, 

a modelling tool based on scientific literature; 

  a review of selected literature.19 

The  EFA  calculator  considers  EFAs’  potential  environmental  impacts  through  a  scoring 
system  which  reflects  EFA  types’  characteristics  and  their  agronomic  context  but  does  not 
quantify  real  impacts.  Initially  designed  to  be  used  at  farm  level,  the  EFA  calculator 
extrapolates and aggregates farm-level results to regional level based on the actual uptake data 
provided by Member States for 2015. This limits the results’ accuracy somewhat. 

A  further  key  observation  is  that  these  potential  effects  are  only  considered  in  the  light  of 
EFAs’  main  characteristics,  without  investigating  further  qualitative  criteria  such  as 
management  practices  and  retention  period.  Effects  are  estimated  in  relative  terms  between 
EFA  types  and  without  considering  a  baseline  (reference  scenario).  The  analysis  looked  at 
nine categories of EFA compositions aggregated at regional NUTS-3 level,20 as illustrated in 
Figure 4. Aspects such as regional context and species composition were also factored in. 

In  terms  of  potential  impacts,  the  focus  is  on  biodiversity,  which  is  the  primary 
environmental  EFA  objective;  the  simulation  focuses  on  the  diversity  and  populations  of 
species using the EUNIS21 classification of species groups: amphibians, birds, invertebrates, 
mammals, reptiles and terrestrial plants. 

15 Choices made by central authorities in all Member States except Belgium and the United Kingdom, where 
they were made by regional authorities. 
16 Based on the EU NUTS-3 classification of regions. 
17 2016 uptake data was received from 18 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Estonia, Spain, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovakia, Finland) and two countries of the United Kingdom (Wales and Northern Ireland). 
18 Tool developed by the University of Hertfordshire with JRC’s coordination. 
19 Most relevant available studies: Ecological Focus Area choices and their potential impacts on biodiversity by 
Evelyn Underwood and Graham Tucker, Institute for European Environmental Policy November 2016. Adding 
Some Green to the Greening: Improving the EU’s Ecological Focus Areas for Biodiversity and Farmers, Guy 
Pe’er and al, Conservation letters, a Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, December 2016. A list of 
all sources can be found in the SWD. 
20 See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/overview. 
21 European nature information system. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
In  addition,  considering  a  broader  environmental  objective  of  EFA,  potential  impacts  on 
ecosystem  services  (benefits  that  people  obtain  from  ecosystems22)  and  climate  are  also 
considered  in  order  to  identify  potential  co-benefits  and  trade-offs  resulting  from 
implementation of the EFA obligation. 

The  simulation  on  ecosystem  services  uses  the  Common  International  Classification  of 
Ecosystem  Services  and  covers  pollination  and  seed  dispersal,  pest  and  disease  control, 
chemical condition of fresh water, mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates. 

Where relevant, the report also considers input from stakeholders, including in expert group 
and civil dialogue group format, and in response to the Commission’s public consultation on 
greening  carried  out  between  December  2015  and  March  201623.  The  report  also  considers  
a  study  on  Member  States’  CAP  choices24,  while  the  Eurostat  farm  structure  survey  and 
annual statistics are used as context information. 

Member State choices, farmers’ uptake data, methodology and bibliography are presented in 
greater detail in the accompanying staff working document. 

2.   

Implementation — state of play 

2.1.   Member States’ EFA choices 

In 2015, the range of EFA types varied significantly between Member States 

Based  on  Member  States’  decisions  for  2015,  the  following  clusters  of  Member  States 
emerge, as shown in Figure 1: 

  14 Member States offered an extensive list of EFA types (10 to 19). All selected land 
lying  fallow,  short-rotation  coppice,  nitrogen-fixing  crops,  buffer  strips  (except  the 
Czech  Republic),  catch  crops/green  cover  (except  Italy)  and  at  least  four  different 
types of landscape features out of nine (primarily trees in group and trees in line). 
  Another  nine  Member  States  opted  for  an  intermediate  list.  All  of  them  chose  land 
lying  fallow,  areas  with  nitrogen-fixing  crops  (except  Denmark)  and  fewer  than  five 
different types of landscape features. 

  Five Member States offered a limited selection of EFA types (maximum of four). All 
of  them  chose  nitrogen-fixing  crops,  land  lying  fallow  (except  the  Netherlands)  and 
one or no landscape feature. 

The  data  shows  that  Member  States  preferred  areas  with  nitrogen-fixing  crops,  land  lying 
fallow and landscape features over hectares of agroforestry, strips of eligible hectares along 
forest edges and terraces. 

23 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/greening/2015_en. 
24 Mapping and analysis of CAP implementation: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/mapping-
analysis-implementation-cap_en. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
For  short-rotation  coppice,  catch  crops  or  green  cover  and  nitrogen-fixing  crops,  Member 
States were required to list species of trees or crops so as to optimise these EFAs’ contribution 
to biodiversity. A wide diversity of species was chosen. 

Between 2015 and 2017 a few Member States adapted their choices, mainly for the EFA list 
and to a limited extent 

Since  2015  nine  Member  States  have  changed  their  decisions,  primarily  on  the  selection  of 
EFA  types  (Figure  1).  Of  these,  six  extended  their  farmers’  choices  to  other  EFA  types, 
seemingly  after  setting  up  the  necessary  administrative  system  to  monitor  their  application. 
The remaining three withdrew some EFA types due to very low uptake among farmers. 

Figure 1 — Number of EFA types selected in 2015 per Member State/region and changes in subsequent 
years 

Most  Member  States  use  options  aimed  at  acknowledging  other  CAP  mechanisms’ 
contribution to biodiversity 

22 Member  States  designated  as  EFAs  at  least  one  element  required  or  protected  by  cross-
compliance rules, namely buffer strips and/or one or more landscape features protected under 
those  rules.  Six  decided  not  to  consider  any  such  feature.  Likewise,  four  out  of  the  five 
Member States that could do so offered farmers the advantage of the EFA forest exemption. 
As  of  2016  only  three  Member  States  have  started  to  apply  EFA  equivalence  (Italy,  the 
Netherlands and Austria). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Options aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of EFA types are rarely chosen 

Although Member States have several ways to enhance the effectiveness of EFAs, these have 
rarely been used. For example, none of the 13 Member States/regions that selected ponds as 
an EFA type set criteria for ensuring their natural value. Likewise, only Belgium (Wallonia) 
out  of  the  31 Member  States/regions  placed  input  restrictions  on  areas  with  nitrogen-fixing 
crops,  while  just  4  out  of  21  (Belgium  (Flanders),  Belgium  (Wallonia),  Germany  and  the 
Netherlands)  did  so for catch crops. Only two Member States  (the Netherlands and Poland) 
have allowed farmers to pool their efforts to create adjacent EFAs that would be better for the 
environment (collective approach). 

Member State choices appear driven by the need to find a balance between maximising 
flexibility for farmers and minimising administrative complexity 

Based  on  the  evidence  collected25  so  far,  Member  States’  implementation  choices  appear 
driven, among others, by the following: 

 

 

the desire to offer farmers as many options as possible, enabling them to exploit the 
usual practices; 
the  cost  of  complying  with  specific  control  requirements  and  of  mapping  permanent 
EFA elements in a dedicated layer of the Land Parcel Identification System; 

  decisions taken under other CAP instruments (e.g. agroforestry measures supported by 
RDPs) or resulting from EU environmental legislation (e.g. mandatory establishment 
of catch crops under Nitrates Action Programmes26); 
local  circumstances  and  environmental  conditions  (e.g.  presence  of  terraces  or 
abundance of semi-natural vegetation). 

 

At this stage, it cannot be established whether any of these elements played a dominant role. 

2.2.   Farmers’ uptake of EFA types 

The EFA obligation covers the vast majority of EU arable land. Land coverage seems to be 
stable between 2015 and 2016 

In 2015, 70 % of the EU27 total arable land fell under the EFA obligation. The proportion was 
69 % in 2016. The remaining part of the arable land is: 

  not covered by the direct payments system (e.g. farmer did not apply for aid); 
  exempted because of the farm’s size (less than 15 ha of arable land); 
  belongs to organic farms or farms under the small farmers scheme; 
  has a high share of grassland; or 
 

is located in countries that apply the forest exemption. 

25 See footnote 24. 
26 Under Council Directive 91/676/EEC (‘the Nitrates Directive’). 
27 For data availability, see Chapter 1.2. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
At EU level, the percentage of EFA areas declared by farmers is almost twice as much as 
the required 5 % at farm level. The three main EFAs are linked to productive or potentially 
productive areas. 

In 2015, 8 million ha of land was declared as EFA, which accounted for 13 % of the arable 
land falling under the obligation and 10 %  after applying the  weighting factors (percentages 
may  differ  at  farm  level).  This  is  significantly  above  the  regulatory  requirement  of  5 %  at 
farm  level.  In  2016  the  figures  were  15 %  and  10 %  respectively,  with  a  slight  increase  of 
130 000 ha. 

In  2015,  the  most  frequently  declared  EFA  types  were  those  linked  to  productive  or 
potentially productive agricultural areas (Figure 2): 

  nitrogen-fixing crops (37.4 % of the physical EFA on the ground); 
  catch crops (33.2 %); 
 

land lying fallow (25.9 %). 

After applying the weighting factors, nitrogen-fixing crops and catch crops reached 54 % of 
the  total  weighted  EFAs  (39 %  and  15 %  respectively).  This  was  5.4 %  of  the  arable  land 
under the obligation and seems to have contributed to overshooting the required 5 % at farm 
level.  Other  areas  like  landscape  features  and  buffer  strips  reached  1.7 %  and  0.7 % 
respectively. 

The  above  proportion  of  EFA  at  EU  level  remained  quite  stable  in  2016,  although  with 
variation across Member States: areas under land lying fallow, landscape features and buffer 
strips decreased, while those under catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops increased. 

 

In  addition, the data on EFA types  shows in  2015 that land lying  fallow declared as 
EFA accounted for 34 % of the total fallow areas reported in Eurostat statistics for the 
Member States concerned. Such total areas decreased by 24 % from 2000 to 2014 but 
increased slightly in 2015. 

  EU  leguminous  crops  areas  as  reported  by  Eurostat  have  increased  by  20 %  since 
2013.  Nitrogen-fixing  crops  declared  as  EFA,  which  were  chosen  by  all  Member 
States except Denmark, covered 49 % of such areas in 2015. The specific role of EFA 
in the different factors that influence the trends of leguminous crops areas would need 
further assessment. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2 — Breakdown of declared EFA areas by main EFA type, at EU level, before and after applying 
weighting factors 

Source: Member States’ uptake data, 2015 (EU-27, data not available for France) 

The distribution of EFA types at Member State and regional level shows clear geographical 
patterns 

Analysis of EFA composition at Member State level (Figure 3) and at NUTS-3 region level 
(Figure 4) reveals several patterns: 

  A substantial share of landscape features and buffer strips is found only in Ireland, the 

United Kingdom and Malta. 

  Land lying fallow is more present in Mediterranean countries like Spain, Portugal and 
Cyprus  and  in  Member  States  located  in  the  boreal  biogeographical  region,  like 
Finland and Latvia. 

  Nitrogen-fixing crops are prevalent in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland and 

Romania. 

  Catch crops are more widespread in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and 

the Netherlands. 

Figure 3 — Breakdown of the main types of EFA area, after applying the weighting factors 

Source: Member States’ uptake data, 2015 (EU-27, data not available for France) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 — Spatial distribution of main EFA type categories for each NUTS 3 region 

Source: Member States’ uptake data, 2015. Data not available for France and Scotland. Italy’s data still subject 
to verification. Regions not classified in Finland are under the forest exemption. 

EFA equivalent practices were applied in three Member States 

The introduction of practices equivalent to EFAs in three Member States resulted in 41 000 ha 
of  equivalent  EFA  areas  in  2015,  mostly  in  Austria  (almost  39 000 ha  based  on  agri-
environment-climate  measures,  accounting  for  65 %  of  the  country’s  EFA  areas).  In  the 
Netherlands, certification schemes covered field margins especially and amounted to 2 700 ha 
(5 % of the total EFAs in the country) in 2015. Italy has been applying equivalence since 2016 
and uptake data is not yet available. 

The key determinants commonly used to explain farmers’ decisions seemingly also apply to 
their uptake of EFA 

Both the scientific literature and the results of the public consultation suggest that the factors 
influencing  farmers’  decisions  about  the  type  of  EFA  to  adopt  fall  roughly  into  three 
categories: 

  economic determinants prompting them to choose the least costly and most productive 

EFA type; 

  policy and administrative factors such as: 

o  a  restricted  list  of  EFA  types  made  available  by  the  national  authorities  (e.g. 

o 

countries having selected only three or four EFA types); 
the level of risk that they will be checked and found to be non-compliant (e.g. 
if a field margin exceeds the maximum width); 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
o 

the  level  of  administrative  burden  (e.g.  this  may  be  reduced  by  use  of  a  pre-
filled single application form with all landscape features qualifying as EFAs); 

 

farmers’ perceptions and knowledge of the EFA obligation. 

At this stage, it cannot be established whether any of these elements played a dominant role. 

3. Observations on EFAs’ potential environmental and climate effects 

This  chapter  details  the chosen  EFA  measures’  possible  environmental  effects,  as revealed 
by the EFA calculator presented in Section 1.2 and a review of selected literature. The EFA 
calculator  simulations  consider  potential  impacts  of  EFA  composition  at  regional  NUTS-3 
level  through  aggregated  scores  which  should  not  be  seen  as  absolute  values.  The  results 
reflect  EFA  types’  characteristics  and  context,  but  do  not  quantify  real  impacts,  which  also 
depend on management practices at farm level that the simulations do not cover. 

As  the  EFA  calculator  only  marginally  covers  possible  impacts  on  climate  mitigation  and 
adaptation, a qualitative assessment was also carried out for that aspect. 

3.1. Potential impacts on biodiversity 

Landscape  features  and  land  lying  fallow  appear  the  most  beneficial  EFA  types  for 
biodiversity 

The  EFA  calculator  suggests  that  all  EFA-type  compositions  observed  at  regional  NUTS-3 
level  could  have  a  positive  impact  on  biodiversity,  though  at  various  degrees.  The  lowest 
score was for regions where catch crops were more than 70 %. The highest potential positive 
impact  was  associated  with  EFA  compositions  where  landscape  features  were  the  most 
prominent  (more  than  50 %  of  the  region’s  total  EFA),  followed  by  the  composition  where 
land lying fallow was prominent (more than 70 %). 

For  species  groups,  the  analysis  indicates  a  positive  impact  of  landscape  features  on 
invertebrates,  birds  and  terrestrial  plants,  while  for  reptiles  and  amphibians  the  presence  of 
buffer strips and fallow land gives higher positive impact scores. 

Findings from other scientific literature also acknowledge these observations. Moreover, they 
suggest  that among landscape features, the most  positive potential  impact on biodiversity is 
associated with hedges, field margins and traditional stone walls since they provide habitats 
for insects and arthropods, birds and plants. 

EFAs could be more beneficial for biodiversity provided appropriate management practices 
are in place 

The  observations  indicate  the  importance  of  management  practices  in  enhancing  the 
environmental effects of EFAs. 

The EFA calculator’s results suggest that the positive impact on biodiversity is likely to vary 
depending on different management requirements for each type of EFA. For example, for land 
lying  fallow  it  depends  on  coverage  and  species  sown.  For  biodiversity  and  in  particular 
pollinators, sowing wildflowers has the highest impact while leaving the soil bare the lowest. 
Natural regeneration is also a good way to foster biodiversity and pollination. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition to the nature of the coverage, the literature also points to the importance of non-
intensive  ways  of  managing  non-productive  EFAs  such  as  keeping  land  fallow  for  a  long 
period  or  not  using  pesticides  because  they  reduce  disturbance  of  the  relevant  habitats,  in 
particular over the bird breeding period. 

Sowing mixtures of species under catch crops/green cover appears to have a positive impact 
on  biodiversity.  Indeed,  according  to  the  literature,  positive  effects  can  be  enhanced  if  the 
mixtures  comprise  plant  mixes  designed  to  benefit  pollinators  and  birds,  and  when  they  are 
left to flower and set seed. 

Findings on species choice apply also to nitrogen-fixing crops, although the simulations also 
showed that Vicia faba might score slightly better than other species. As for other EFA types, 
potential  positive  impacts  of  nitrogen-fixing  crops  also  hinge  on  the  type  of  management, 
such as cultivation frequency and extensive management. 

3.2. Other potential impacts 

3.2.1. Potential impacts on ecosystem services 

Landscape  features  provide  best  results  in  terms  of  their  potential  positive  impact  on 
ecosystem services 

The EFA calculator results suggest that out of the different EFA-type compositions at regional 
NUTS-3 level, the presence of prevalent landscape features on more than 50 % of the region’s 
total EFA shows the most positive potential impact on ecosystem services as a whole. 

Further  analysis  of  the  scientific  literature  indicates  that  landscape  features’  positive  impact 
on ecosystem services could be enhanced by ensuring their proper floral diversity, vegetation 
structure and management. For buffer strips, their location and dimensions are key. 

Other EFA types may have some positive impact on some ecosystem services, especially if 
certain management rules are put in place and if the choice of species sown meets specific 
requirements 

Catch  crops  fare  well  in  terms  of  their  impact  on  the  chemical  condition  of  freshwater. 
Simulations from the EFA calculator show, for example, that their impact can be enhanced by 
using mixtures of different species. They also show that species most commonly declared by 
farmers for catch crops (e.g. Lolium perenne, Lolium multiflorum, Sinapis alba and Raphanus 
sativus)  score  better  when  sown  as  a  mixture  rather  than  as  single  species.  Furthermore, 
species  with  different  nutrient  requirements  and  rooting  systems  can  be  more  efficient  in 
reducing the risk of nitrogen leaching. 

The positive impact of land lying fallow on ecosystem services appears also to depend on the 
choice of species sown: wild seed mixes  and bare fallow with winter stubbles and naturally 
regenerated  vegetation  fare  better  than  grass.  However,  any  coverage  on  fallow  land  is 
welcome, as bare soil scores the lowest on ecosystem services and may have negative impacts 
due  to  the  higher  risk  of  soil  erosion.  Land  lying  fallow  also  gives  better  results  if  left 
unmanaged for a long period. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  impact  of  nitrogen-fixing  crops  may  also  depend  on  the  choice  of  species  and 
management:  decreasing  cultivation  frequency  reduces  nitrogen  leaching,  phosphate  run-off 
and the risk of soil erosion. 

3.2.2. Potential impacts on climate 

From  a  climate  adaptation  perspective,  the  introduction  of  EFA  could  help  farms’  climate 
resilience,  for  example,  through  the  increased  provision  of  landscape  features.  Climate 
mitigation  could  be  enhanced  by  increased  use  of  leguminous  crops  and  the  resulting 
displacement  of  nitrogen  fertiliser  with  nitrogen  fixation.  Also,  the  benefits  on  soil  carbon 
stocks through agroforestry and afforestation, when implemented, could improve the carbon 
sequestration of EU land use. 

Soil carbon sequestration is directly dependent on soil biodiversity. This highlights the links 
and possible synergies between improving biodiversity on farms and climate mitigation. 

4. Conclusions 

2016 was the second year of application of the EFA obligation. The data collected so far from 
19 Member  States  suggests  that  there  was  little  change  in  the  second  year,  neither  in  how 
national authorities run the system nor from farmers, who generally met the obligation in the 
same way as in the first year. As a result, there was almost no change in the proportion of land 
under  EFA,  the  overall  areas  that  farmers  declared  as  EFA  and  the  share  of  different  EFA 
types in these areas. 

The overall percentage of declared EFAs on arable land is nearly double the 5 % required at 
farm level. This has been achieved by relying mostly on productive and potentially productive 
EFAs:  nitrogen-fixing  crops,  catch  crops  and  land  lying  fallow.  Other  EFAs,  including 
landscape features, contributed only slightly to the overall declared EFAs. 

The  analysis  suggests  that  EFA  types’  environmental  benefits  depend  not  only  on  their 
quantity but also on their quality, linked to specific conditions and management requirements 
such as: 
 

type of soil cover for land lying fallow, different mixtures of crops for catch crops and 
of crop groups for nitrogen-fixing crops; 

  cutting regimes, retention periods and the use of chemical inputs; 
 

the diversity of vegetation structure for landscape features, the location and dimension 
for buffer strips. 

The  changes  to  secondary  greening  legislation  currently  pursued  by  the  Commission  are  an 
important step towards better management practices, along with: (i) a ban on the use of plant 
protection  products  on  (potentially)  productive  EFAs;  (ii)  clarifying  and  setting  retention 
periods for some EFA types; and (iii) streamlining the requirements that might have prevented 
farmers  from  using  some  of  the  most  environmentally  beneficial  EFAs,  namely  landscape 
features and buffer strips. 

The Commission will continue its reflection on the subject, including as part of the upcoming 
evaluation of greening. This report will make a useful contribution to that evaluation, which 
will  look  at  all  aspects  of  greening,  including  EFAs.  The  evaluation  will  then  feed  into  the 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
next phase of modernising and simplifying the CAP, to maximise its contribution to meeting 
the Commission’s 10 priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  considerations,  the  Commission  does  not  propose  to  amend 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 by increasing the percentage of EFA. 

14