COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy 2014-2020
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural performance, agricultural situation, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, farming sector, food production, management of resources, natural resources, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.12.2021  SWD(2021) 387 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT      accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy          2014-2020 {COM(2021) 815 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

List of visuals .......................................................................................................................2 
List of evaluations ................................................................................................................3 
Visuals for Chapter 3.1. .......................................................................................................4 
Visuals for Chapter 3.2. .....................................................................................................11 
Visuals for Chapter 3.3. .....................................................................................................20 
Visuals for Chapter 3.4. .....................................................................................................24 
Other visuals ......................................................................................................................25 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of visuals 

Figure 1. Level of agricultural income and share of direct support in income in the EU. .................... 5 
Figure 2. Total factor productivity in agriculture in the EU-27. ........................................................... 5 
Figure 3. Number of recognised producer organisations in the EU. ..................................................... 6 
Figure 4. Share of EU in global agri-food exports (%). ........................................................................ 6 
Figure 5. EU citizens’ awareness of the EU quality labels (%).  .......................................................... 7 
Figure 6. The distribution of direct payments and land in the EU, 2019. ............................................. 7 
Figure 7. Distribution of direct payments` beneficiaries by size class in the EU, 2019. ...................... 8 
Figure  8.  EU  average  income  and  direct  payments  per  worker  by  physical  farm  size  and  share  of 
direct payments in income, 2017-2019. ................................................................................................ 8 
Figure  9.  EU  average  income  and  direct  payments  per  hectare  by  physical  farm  size  class,  2017-
2019. ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 
Figure 10. EU average income per worker (EUR) and share of direct payments (DP) in income (%) 
by economic size class, 2017-2019. ...................................................................................................... 9 
Figure 11. EU average direct payments per hectare by economic size class (EUR/ha). .................... 10 
Figure 12. Income gap between farming and the overall economy (EUR/worker), 2017-2019. ........ 10 
Figure 13. EU agricultural areas subject to environmental requirements, 2019 (million ha). 
  ....... 12 
Figure 14. Organic areas (1 000 ha) and number of producers. .......................................................... 13 
Figure 15. Level of direct payment per hectare by class of intensification in the EU (EUR/ha), 2017-
2019. ................................................................................................................................................... 13 
Figure 16. Breakdown of the main types of Ecological Focus Area, 2019. ....................................... 14 
Figure  17.  Evolution  of  areas  funded  under  AECM  sub-measure  10.1  'Payment  for  Agri-
Environment........................................................................................................................................ 14 
Figure 18. Farmland birds indices in the EU (population index 2000=100), 2005-2019. .................. 15 
Figure 19. Share of agricultural land in moderate to severe risk of soil erosion by water, 2016 (%). 15 
Figure  20.  Percentage  of  groundwater  stations  in  the  EU  exceeding  50mg  nitrates  per  litre,  2012-
2016 and 2016-2019. .......................................................................................................................... 16 
Figure 21. Harmonised Plant protection products.         ..................................................................... 16 
Figure 22. Development of GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU.  .......................................... 17 
Figure 23. Development of GHG emissions and agricultural production (2005 = 100). .................... 17 
Figure  24.  Number  of  water  bodies  under  significant  pressure  from  agricultural  water  abstraction, 
2018. ................................................................................................................................................... 18 
Figure  25.  Average  EU  direct  payments  per  hectare  in  areas  facing  constraints  (EUR/ha),  2017-
2019. ................................................................................................................................................... 20 
Figure 26. Number of persons employed in agriculture (million), 2005-2019. .................................. 21 
Figure 27. Number of farms in the EU (million), 2010-2016. ............................................................ 21 
Figure 28. EU farming population, by age group, 2007-2016. ........................................................... 22 
Figure 29. Arable land prices in the EU, 2018 (EUR/ha). .................................................................. 22 
Figure 30. Poverty rate in EU rural areas and in the whole territory. ................................................. 23 
Figure 31. Agricultural training of EU farm managers, 2016. ............................................................ 24 
Figure  32.  Most  important  aspects  of  administrative  burdens  in  the  implementation  of  the  CAP 
measures and instruments fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation.......... 24 
Figure 33. Perceived performance of the CAP. .................................................................................. 25 

Table 1. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the viable food production. ................................ 4 
Table 2. CAP Pillar II result indicators related to the viable food production (EU-28). ...................... 4 
Table 3. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. ....... 11 
Table 4. CAP Pillar II EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. ...... 12 
Table  5.  Examples  of  positive  effects  on  the  environment  and  the  climate  of  farming  practices 
supported with the CAP. ..................................................................................................................... 18 
Table 6: CAP Pillar II result indicators related to balance territorial development (EU-28). ............. 20 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
List of evaluations 

N° 

Title&hyperlink 

1.  Synthesis ex-ante evaluations on rural development programmes 2014-2020 

Year of 
publication 
2016 

2.  Summary Report 'Synthesis of the evaluation components of the 2017 enhanced 

2017 

AIRs' 

3.  Payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the 

environment ('greening')  
 Forestry measures under Rural Development  

4. 

2018 

2019 

5.  Summary Report 'Synthesis of the evaluation components of the 2019 enhanced 

2019 

AIRs' 

6.  Marketing standards contained in the CMO regulation, the 'Breakfast 

Directives' and CMO secondary legislation  
7.  CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

8.  EU agricultural promotion policy – internal and third country markets 

9. 

10. 

11. 

Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on generational renewal, local 
development and jobs in rural areas 
Impact of the CAP measures towards the general objective "viable food 
production" 
Impact of the CAP on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions 

12.  Mandatory indication of country of origin labelling for certain meats 

13. 

14. 

Impact of the CAP on sustainable management natural resources (biodiversity, 
soil & water) 
Impact of the CAP on territorial development of rural areas: socioeconomic 
aspects 

15.  The CAP´s impact on knowledge exchange and advisory activities 

16. 

Information policy on the common agricultural policy 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2021 

2021 

2021 

2021 

2021 

2021 

2021 

2021 

17.  Geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the 

2021 

EU  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Visuals for Chapter 3.1. 

Table 1. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the viable food production. 

  Indicator 

Share of direct support in agricultural factor income 

Variability of gross farm income per full time equivalent 

Variability of gross farm income per farm 

Share of value for primary producers in the food chain 

Share of EU agri-food exports in world's agri-food exports 

Share of EU agri-primary products' exports in production values 

Share of EU food industry products' exports in production values 

Share of final products in EU agri-food exports 

Agri-food imports from least developed countries 

Year  

2013 

2019 

25.90 

- 

1.02 

1.10 

0.99 

1.16 

26.20 

- 

17.30 

17.57 

10.70 

12.48 

9.50 

10.75 

43.10 

47.19 

Unit 

% 

ratio 

ratio 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

2.72 

3.34 

billion 
EUR 

Note: Selection according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar I. 
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development FADN (Farm Accountancy  
Data Network), Eurostat, Global Trade Atlas. 

Table 2. CAP Pillar II result indicators related to the viable food production (EU-28). 

  Indicator 

Agricultural  holdings  with  Rural  Development  support  for 
investments in restructuring or modernisation  

Agricultural  holdings  receiving  Rural  Development  support  for 
participating in quality schemes, local markets and short supply 
circuits, and producer groups/organisations 

Year  

2015 

0.15 

2019 

1.81 

0.01 

0.88 

Unit 

% 

% 

Farms  participating  in  risk  management  schemes  supported  by 
the CAP 

0.03 

5.99 

% 

Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar II. 
Source: Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Level of agricultural income and share of direct support in income in the EU. 

20.000

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Factor income per FTE job

Share of direct payment in income (right axis)

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators,  Data  explorer  (RPI_01_1)  and  on  Eurostat,  Economic  accounts  for  agriculture  (aact_eaa04, 
aact_ali01).  

Figure 2. Total factor productivity in agriculture in the EU-27. 

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

90

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Note: Total factor productivity (TFP) compares total outputs relative to the total inputs used in production of 
the  output.  As  both  output  and  inputs  are  expressed  in  term  of  volume  indices,  the  indicator  measures  TFP 
growth.  The  TFP  is  a  composite  indicator  for  land,  capital  and  labour  productivity  growth.  The  comparison 
between Member States of the change over time of TFP growth is meaningful but not the comparison of the 
indicator as such. This is an index, in the first step 2010 is set at 100, then 3 year-averages are calculated to 
smooth the effect of weather e.g. on the indicator. Therefore, in the graph 2010 corresponds to the (2008-2010) 
average. 
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer (CTX_SEC_27_1). 

5 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Number of recognised producer organisations in the EU. 

3.900

3.800

3.700

3.600

3.500

3.400

3.300

3.200

3.100

3.000

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer (OIM_05_2). 

Figure 4. Share of EU in global agri-food exports (%). 

18,0

17,5

17,0

16,5

16,0

15,5

15,0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer (RPI_04). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. EU citizens’ awareness of the EU quality labels (%).  

Don't know

None (Spontaneous)

Traditional speciality guaranteed

Protected geographical indication

Protected designation of origin

Fairtrade

Organic farming

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Source: Special Eurobarometer 504 and Special Eurobarometer 410. 

Figure 6. Distribution of direct payments and land in the EU, 2019. 

2013

2020

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Area

Direct Payments

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  CATS  (Clearance  Audit  Trail 
System) data. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Distribution of direct payments` beneficiaries by size class in the EU, 2019. 

50%

48%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

28%

0%

1%

Very small farms
(<= 5ha)

Small farms
(5-20 ha)

13%

4%

3%

0%

Medium size
farms
(20-100 ha)

Larger medium
size farms
(100-200 ha)

2%

0%

0%

0%

Large farms
(200-500 ha)

Very large farms
(>500 ha)

80% smallest beneficiaries

20% biggest beneficiaries

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CATS data.  

Figure 8. EU average income and direct payments per worker by physical farm size and share of direct 
payments in income, 2017-2019. 

EUR/worker
60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Income other than direct payments per worker
Direct payments per worker
EU average income per worker
Share of direct payments in income

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. EU average income and direct payments per hectare by physical farm size class, 2017-2019.  

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

259

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Income per worker

Direct payments/ha

EU average direct payments/ha

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. 

Figure 10. EU average income per worker (EUR) and share of direct payments (DP) in income (%) by 
economic size class, 2017-2019. 

EUR/worker

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Direct payments per worker
Income other than Direct payments per worker
EU average income per worker
Share of Direct payments in income

Note: Economic size classes: (1)  EUR 2 000  –  < 8 000; (2)  EUR 8 000  –  < 25 000; (3)  EUR 25 000  – 
< 50 000; (4) EUR 50 000 – < 100 000; (5) EUR 100 000 – < 500 000; (6) > EUR 500 000. From 2018, the first 
economic size class includes only farms from EUR 4 000 to EUR 8 000. The income indicator used is the farm 
net value added per full time equivalent.  
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. EU average direct payments per hectare by economic size class (EUR/ha). 

EUR/ha

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2011-2013

2017-2019

Note: Economic size classes: (1)  EUR 2 000  –  < 8 000; (2)  EUR 8 000  –  < 25 000; (3)  EUR 25 000  – 
< 50 000; (4) EUR 50 000 – < 100 000; (5) EUR 100 000 – < 500 000; (6) > EUR 500 000. From 2018, the first 
economic size class includes only farms from EUR 4 000 to EUR 8 000. The income indicator used is the farm 
net value added per full time equivalent.  
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. 

Figure 12. Income gap between farming and the overall economy (EUR/worker), 2017-2019. 

85.000

75.000

65.000

55.000

45.000

35.000

25.000

15.000

5.000

-5.000

-15.000

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

Operating subsidies per worker (including support covering possible negative market income)
Market income (without support) per worker
Gross wages and salaries in the total economy (in current prices)

8
2
-
U
E

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  tables 
aact_eaa01, aact_ali01, nama_10_a10, nama_10_a10_e). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Visuals for Chapter 3.2. 

Table 3. CAP Pillar I EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. 

  Indicator 

Year  

Unit 

Share of organic area in total agricultural area 

Share of organic cattle in total cattle herd 

Share of organic pig in total pig herd 

Share of organic sheep in total sheep flock 

Share of organic goat in total goat herd 

2013 

2016 

2019 

5.70 

4.10 

1.30 

5.10 

5.90 

6.70 

4.50 

1.40 

5.10 

6.30 

7.90 

5.60 

2.00 

6.00 

8.00 

Share of permanent grassland in total agricultural area 

33.40 

33.80 

34.50 

Share of temporary grassland in total agricultural area 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: afforested 
areas 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: buffer 
strips 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: catch crops, 
or green cover 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: land lying 
fallow 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: landscape 
features 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: nitrogen-
fixing crops 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: short 
rotation coppice 

Share of Ecological Focus Areas in arable land: strips along 
forest edges 

Share of agricultural area under greening practices 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5.00 

10.50 

5.00 

9.20 

0.10 

0.00 

0.10 

- 

4.80 

5.90 

2.50 

1.90 

0.50 

0.20 

6.40 

2.10 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

77.30 

76.80 

Share of farms specialised in field cropping 

30.00 

32.00 

Share of farms specialised in pigs and poultry 

9.00 

9.00 

Share of farms specialised in grazing livestock 

17.00 

17.00 

Share of farms specialised in horticulture 

2.00 

2.00 

Share of farms specialised in permanent crops 

17.00 

19.00 

Share of mixed farms 

Structural diversity of EU farms 

25.00 

22.00 

0.78 

0.78 

Note: Selection according to the CAP results indicators for Pillar I. 
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development FADN and Eurostat. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

index 

11 

 
 
 
Table 4. CAP Pillar II EU result indicators related to the natural resources and climate change. 

 Indicator 

Forest  or  other  wooded  area  under  management  contracts  supporting 
biodiversity  

Year  

Unit 

2015 

2019 

0.06 

0.51 

% 

Agricultural land under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or 
landscapes  

5.63 

17.37 

% 

Agricultural land under management contracts to improve water management  

4.42 

13.96 

Forestry land under management contracts to improve water management 

0.04 

0.25 

Agricultural  land  under  management  contracts  to  improve  soil  management 
and/or prevent soil erosion  

4.45 

13.81 

% 

% 

% 

Forestry  land  under  management  contracts  to  improve  soil  management 
and/or prevent soil erosion  

0.04 

0.36 

% 

Irrigated land switching to more efficient irrigation systems 

Livestock Unit concerned by investments in live-stock management in view of 
reducing GHG (Green House Gas) and/or ammonia emissions  

0.01 

0.44 

0.08 

0.93 

% 

% 

Agricultural  land  under  management  contracts  targeting  reduction  of  GHG 
and/or ammonia emissions 

0.68 

2.84 

% 

Agricultural  and  forest  land  under  management  contracts  contributing  to 
carbon sequestration or conservation 

0.30 

1.06 

% 

Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pilar II. 
Source:  Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators.  

Figure 13. EU agricultural areas subject to environmental requirements, 2019 (million ha). 

 200

 180

 160

 140

 120

 100

 80

 60

 40

 20

0

UAA

Cross Compliance

Greening

AECM

Note: UAA-Utilised Agricultural Area; AECM- Agri-Environment-Climate Measures. 
Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  CAP  dashboard  Environment  and 
climate action (CTX_SEC_18_1, OID_05_3, OIH_01_1a, OIR_06_1.1). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Organic areas (1 000 ha) and number of producers. 

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

350.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Area under organic farming (left)

Organic producers (right)

Source:  Directorate-General 
(CTX_SEC_19_1c & OIH_03_02b). 

for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  CAP  dashboard  Organic 

Figure 15. Level of direct payment per hectare by class of intensification in the EU (EUR/ha), 2017-2019. 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Very
extensive
Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

2011-2013

2017-2019

Very
intensive
Q10

Note:   Farms  are  classified  according  to  their  level  of  intermediate  costs* per  hectare.  The  deciles  are 
determined based on the population in such a way that there are equal numbers of represented farms in each 
decile. *  Intermediate  costs covers total  specific  costs  (fertilizers,  plant  protection  products,  seeds,  feed  for 
livestock, other specific crop and livestock costs) and farming overheads not linked to a specific agricultural 
activity  such  as  energy,  contract  work,  machinery  and  buildings  maintenance,  water,  insurance  and  other 
farming overheads.  
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Breakdown of the main types of Ecological Focus Area, 2019. 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

EU-
28

Afforested areas, agroforestry, short rotation croppice Catch crops

Landscape features, terraces

Nitrogen fixing crops

Buffer strips and field margins. Strips along forest

Land lying fallow

Note: before applying the weighting factors 
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP dashboard, Biodiversity 
(RPI_13_4a, RPI_13_4b, RPI_13_4c, RPI_13_4d, RPI_13_4e, RPI_13_4f, RPI_13_4g, RPI_13_4h, RPI_13_4i, 
RPI_13_4j). 

Figure 17. Evolution of areas funded under AECM sub-measure 10.1 'Payment for Agri-Environment 
-Climate Commitments' (million ha). 

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Cultivation
practices

Farm
management,
integrated
approaches

Irrigation/drainage Management of

inputs incl.
integrated
production
(reduction of
mineral fertilizers,
reduction of
pesticides)

others

Management of
landscape,
habitats,
grassland, HNV
farming

Source:  Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer, (OIR_06_1.1). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18. Farmland birds indices in the EU (population index 2000=100), 2005-2019. 

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

All common species

Common farmland species

Common forest species

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat, Environment 
statistics, Biodiversity (online table env_bio3). 

Figure 19. Share of agricultural land in moderate to severe risk of soil erosion by water, 2016 (%). 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer (CTX_ENV_42_2b). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  20. Percentage  of groundwater stations  in the  EU  exceeding 50mg nitrates  per litre,  2012-2016 
and 2016-2019. 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2012-2015

2016-2019

Source:  European  Commission,  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning 
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member  
State reports for the period 2016–2019 (COM(2021)1000 final). 

Figure 21. Harmonised plant protection products.         

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  CAP  dashboard,  Food  and 
Health Quality Protection (CTX_ENV_48_1). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 22. Development of GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU.  

700.000

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Total net emissions from agriculture

% of total GHG emissions

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP 
Indicators, Data explorer (IMP_07_2 and IMP_07_1). 

Figure 23. Development of GHG emissions and agricultural production (2005 = 100). 

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

GHG emissions from agriculture

Agricultural production volume index

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on European Environmental 
Agency data and on CAP Agrifood data portal, CAP Indicators, Data explorer (CTX_ENV_45_1a). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  24.  Number  of  water  bodies  under  significant  pressure  from  agricultural  water  abstraction, 
2018. 

Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on ‘WISE Water Framework Directive (data  viewer)’, European  
Environment Agency, 2018. 

Table 5. Examples of positive effects on the environment and the climate of farming practices supported 
with the CAP. 

Impact 

General 
effect 

Meta-analysis reference 

Result 

Agroforestry 

Agroforestry has a positive effect on several environmental and climate impacts compared to agricultural land 
without trees. Agroforestry increased soil organic carbon stock by 18% (Shi et al, 2018), and was estimated to 
mitigate  CO2  emissions  with  27.2  ±  13.5  t  CO2  equivalents  ha-1  y-1,  at  least  for  the  first  14  years  after 
establishment (Kim et al, 2016). It was also found to increase significantly biodiversity (Torralba et al. 2016). 

Biodiversity 

Carbon 
sequestration 

2  out  of  2 
meta-
analyses 
showing 
positive 
results 

5  out  of  5 
meta-
analyses 
showing 
positive 
results 

Torralba,  M.,  Fagerholm,  N.,  Burgess,  P.  J., 
Moreno,  G.,  &  Plieninger,  T.  (2016).  Do 
European  agroforestry  systems  enhance 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services?  A 
meta-analysis.  Agriculture,  ecosystems  & 
environment, 
150-161. 
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002 

230, 

compared 

Agroforestry, 
to 
land  without  trees,  resulted  in 
a  significant  mean  increase  of 
biodiversity. 

Shi,  L.,  Feng,  W.,  Xu,  J.,  &  Kuzyakov,  Y. 
(2018). Agroforestry systems: Meta‐analysis 
of 
sequestration 
soil 
future  potentials.  Land 
processes,  and 
degradation  &  development,  29(11),  3886-
3897.https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136 

stocks, 

carbon 

compared 

Agroforestry, 
to 
land  without  trees,  resulted  in 
a  mean  increase  of  +18%  in 
soil organic carbon stock 

GHG 

1  out  of  1  Kim, D. G., Kirschbaum, M. U., & Beedy, T.  Agroforestry,  compared  with 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emissions 

meta-
analysis 
showing 
positive 
results 

L.  (2016).  Carbon  sequestration  and  net 
emissions  of  CH4 
and  N2O  under 
agroforestry: Synthesizing available data and 
suggestions  for  future  studies.  Agriculture, 
Ecosystems  &  Environment,  226,  65-78. 
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.011 

land, 
to  contribute 

was 
agricultural 
estimated 
to 
mitigating  27.2  ±  13.5  t  CO2 
equivalents ha-1 y-1 at least for 
the 
after 
first  14  years 
establishment. 

Organic farming 

Organic  farming has a positive effect on several environmental and climate impacts per  unit of agricultural 
land compared to conventional farming. The positive effects are on biodiversity, carbon sequestration, energy 
use,  eutrophication,  nutrient  loss,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  pest  and  disease  control.  For  example, 
organic  farming systems increased biodiversity by 34% in both biotic abundance and biotic richness of the 
species studies in Smith et al. (2018). It also increased by 23.5% soil carbon stocks in arable crops, orchards 
and horticulture (Aguilera et al, 2013). 

Biodiversity 

Carbon 
sequestration 

11  out  of 
13  meta-
analysis 
showing 
positive 
results 

8  out  of  8 
meta-
analysis 
showing 
positive 
results 

Smith,  O.M.,  Cohen,  A.L.,  Reganold,  J.P., 
Jones,  M.S.,  Orpet,  R.J.,  Taylor,  J.M., 
Thurman,  J.H.,  Cornell,  K.A.,  Olsson,  R.L., 
Ge,  Y.,  Kennedy,  C.M.,  Crowder,  D.W., 
2020.  Landscape 
the 
sustainability  of  organic  farming  systems. 
Proc.  Natl.  Acad.  Sci.  U.  S.  A.  117,  2870–
2878. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906909117 

context 

affects 

to 

farming 

systems, 
Organic 
compared 
conventional 
farming  systems,  resulted  in  a 
mean increase of 34% in both 
biotic  (all  species)  abundance 
and biotic richness. 

Aguilera,  E;  Lassaletta,  L;  Gattinger,  A; 
Gimeno,  BS.,  2013.  Managing  soil  carbon 
for climate change mitigation and adaptation 
in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-
analysis.  AGRICULTURE  ECOSYSTEMS 
25-36. 
& 
10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003 

ENVIRONMENT 

168, 

Organic  farming,  compared  to 
in 
farming 
conventional 
(including  arable 
croplands 
crops, 
and 
orchards 
horticulture,  but 
excluding 
permanent grassland), resulted 
in  a  mean  increase  by  23.5% 
in soil carbon stocks (kgC/ha). 

Note: The above examples were chosen among a large set of farming practices proposed and/or implemented 
by  the  Member  States  with  CAP  support  (both  commitments  and  investments),  with  the  aim  to  reduce  the 
environmental and/or climate change impacts of agriculture in the EU. These farming practices were analysed 
in several high-quality meta-analyses of large number of experimental trials assessing the practices effects on 
environment  and  climate  outcomes.  Therefore,  the  positive  effects  reported  here  are  supported  by  robust 
scientific evidence. Note that these practices can have negative effects on production (e.g., there is very strong 
evidence that organic systems can lead to lower yield compared to conventional systems).  Detailed results can 
be found in the iMAP wiki (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/IMAP/Farming+practices+fiches)  
Source: Joint Research Centre.  

19 

 
 
 
Visuals for Chapter 3.3. 

Table 6: CAP Pillar II result indicators related to balance territorial development (EU-28). 

 Indicator 

Agricultural  holdings  with  RDP 
plan/investments for young farmers 

Jobs created in supported projects 

supported  business  development 

Rural population covered by local development strategies  

Rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures  

Year  

2015 
0.06 

2019 
1.21 

Unit 

% 

10 

21 

0.68 

17 210 

N° 

63 

22 

% 

% 

Jobs created in supported projects (Leader)  

- 

24 290 

N° 

Note: according to the CAP results indicators for Pilar II. 
Source:  Agri-food data portal_CAP Indicators.  

Figure 25. Average EU direct payments per hectare in areas facing constraints (EUR/ha), 2017-2019. 

EUR/worker

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

EUR/ha
500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Income

Operating
subsidies

Not in ANC area

Income

Operating
subsidies

In ANC not mountain
area

Income

Operating
subsidies

In ANC mountain area

Direct payments/worker

ANC/worker

Other RD*/worker

Income per worker

total operating subsidies/ha

Note:  ANC = support to farms  in areas  facing  natural or other specific constraints; FNVA =  farm  net  value 
added  per  full  time  equivalent  =  amount  available  to  remunerate  all  factors  of  production  (land,  labour  and 
capital,  both  external  and  own  factors);  other  RD:  rural  development  measures  other  than  ANC  (including 
national top-ups and agri-environment-climate commitments, but excluding investments supports).  
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on FADN data. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26. Number of persons employed in agriculture (million), 2005-2019. 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EU-28

EU-15

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  table 
aact_ali01). 

Figure 27. Number of farms in the EU (million), 2010-2016. 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2010

2013

2016

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  table 
ef_m_farmang).  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28. EU farming population, by age group, 2007-2016. 

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2007

2010

2013

2016

Less than 35

From 35 to 44 years

From 45 to 54 years

From 55 to 64 years

65 years or over

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  table 
ef_m_farmang). 

Figure 29. Arable land prices in the EU, 2018 (EUR/ha). 

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

BE* BG CZ DK EE IE EL ES FR HR IT LV LT LU HU NL PL RO SI SK FI

SE UK*

Note: BE*: for Belgium, the value corresponds to 2014 as it is the most recent value  available, and for UK it 
corresponds to 2018. 
Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  table 
nama_10_a10_e). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30. Poverty rate in EU rural areas and in the whole territory. 

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Rural areas Whole territory

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  tables 
ilc_peps13 and  ilc_peps01). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Visuals for Chapter 3.4.  

Figure 31. Agricultural training of EU farm managers, 2016. 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Practical experience only

Basic training

Full agricultural training

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  (online  table 
ef_mp_training). 

Figure  32.  Most  important  aspects  of  administrative  burdens  in  the  implementation  of  the  CAP 
measures and instruments fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation. 

Administrative burden for managing authorities

7%

11%

8%

7%

20%

5%

13%

28%

Administrative burden for providers of advice

14%

15%

16%

5%

26%

4%

8%

11%

Administrative burden for receivers of advice

7%

15%

10%

7%

28%

4%

19%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Too costly

Too complex operation

Too time consuming preparation

Unclear eligibility

Too many administrative requirements Too frequent policy changes

Administrative burden acceptable

Do not know

Source:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  the  results  from  the  public 
consultation in the  framework of the Evaluation on the  CAP’s impact on knowledge  exchange  and advisory 
activities. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Other visuals 

Figure 33. Perceived performance of the CAP. 

Providing safe, healthy food of high quality (2020)

28%

44%

18%

5%

5%

Providing safe, healthy food of high quality (2017)

22%

Protecting the environment and tackling climate change
(2020)
Protecting the environment and tackling climate change
(2017)

25%

42%

38%

19%

6%

11%

24%

7%

6%

19%

38%

22%

8%

13%

Ensuring a sustainable way to produce food (2020)

23%

44%

21%

4%

8%

Ensuring a sustainable way to produce food (2017)

18%

44%

19%

5%

Securing a stable supply of food in the EU (2020)

29%

51%

Securing a stable supply of food in the EU (2017)

Ensuring reasonable food prices for consumers (2020)

Ensuring reasonable food prices for consumers (2017)

Creating growth and jobs in rural areas (2020)

21%

23%

19%

21%

51%

42%

41%

37%

14%
2%

6%

12%
3%

12%

13%

23%

6%

6%

21%

7%

12%

27%

8%

7%

Creating growth and jobs in rural areas (2017)

17%

35%

25%

8%

15%

Ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers (2020)

23%

39%

24%

8%

6%

Ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers (2017)

17%

39%

22%

8%

14%

Totally agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Totally disagree

Doesn't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on the Special Eurobarometer 473 
and Special Eurobarometer 504.   

25