Across the EU28, €4.3 billion is allocated to               Figure 1: Allocation of VCS across sectors in the VCS per year which is approximately 10% of                  EU28 (2018) the direct payments budget. The beef and veal sector receives most support under VCS (40% of all VCS in 2018) followed by milk/milk products (21%), sheep and goat meat (13%), closely followed by protein crops (11%) (see Figure 1). There are no major changes in the amount of support before and after the revised decisions with one notable exception - the sheep and goat meat sector. Here, support has increased by €100 million per year. Although the number of Member States offering support to the sheep and goat sector has decreased by only one (EE), a number of Member States have increased the number of support measures offered (BG, EL, ES, FR, AT, FI) (European Commission, 2017)                                           Source: European Commission, DG         Agriculture  and   Rural Development Informative Note, 2017 In relation to protein crops, one Member State (SI) decided to withdraw VCS to the protein crop sector, Spain and Hungary each deleted one of their measures related to the protein sector and new measures were put in place by Greece, France and Poland. In 2016 49.5% of all beef and veal cows and 36.5% of dairy cattle were supported through VCS27. In the case studies, one example was highlighted in the Netherlands where VCS has been targeted at areas of land of environmental value but which are not eligible for direct payments. The ‘grazing animal premium’ provides support for grazing cows or sheep on natural land such as dunes, heaths and salt marches. The aim of the support is to encourage the grazing of these habitats which are important for biodiversity to minimise unwanted natural succession. None of the other eight case study Member States which offer VCS for livestock had imposed any environmental conditions such as maximum or minimum stocking densities. In addition to VCS, a small number of Member States can provide coupled support for cotton. A maximum of 302,000 hectares are eligible for coupled support each year. Of this, 250,000 hectares is in Greece and 48,000 hectares in Spain. 5.1.2.3     Choices relating to Pillar 2 measures Information is provided below on the choices Member States have taken for the implementation of those Pillar 2 measures that have the potential to influence biodiversity. Data are provided on budget allocations and the area anticipated to come under agreement. Where available, data on uptake to 2017 are provided (the latest date for which data were available) and any changes in targets and budget allocations during the programming period are identified. For those measures affecting agricultural land, the focus is primarily on those measures that are prioritised for the environment. Other measures that are programmed under other priorities can have impacts on biodiversity but data were not available at a sufficiently disaggregated level to show what the focus of Member States’ implementation choices on such measures had been. Measures chosen for implementation in Member States (2014-2020) The implementation choices relating to the measures which have impacts on biodiversity as their intervention logic are set out below. This include the AECM (M10), the organic farming measure (M11), the Natura 2000 measure (M12), the forest-environment measure (M15), the measure to support investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems (M8.5) as well as the physical investments measure (M4), particularly non-productive investments. Measures for advice and training (M1 and M2) and other forest measures are also covered where these have been used to 27 Based on there being 32,895,000 beef and veal cows in 2016 and 23,525,000 dairy cows: data from the Meat Market Observatory – see https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/beef-production_en.pdf Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 35

support biodiversity. The ANC measure (M13) is also covered, as it is primarily programmed under Priority 4 and can indirectly support biodiversity, depending on how it is implemented, even though its intervention logic is not biodiversity focussed. Table 8 shows which Member States and regions have programmed those Pillar 2 measures with an intervention logic linked to biodiversity. M10 (AECM) is not displayed as it is a mandatory measure and programmed everywhere. Table 8: Overview of the implementation choices made in the EU Member States for a selection of CAP instruments with biodiversity as their intervention logic Measure 4.4      M7.1 (N2000         M8               M11       M12.1 (N2K  M15 (M15.1      M16 (non             management          (any of          (organic  –           or 15.2;        (any of Member        productive       plans)              M8.1-8.5;        payments) agriculture Forest-         M16.1, 16.5 State         investments)                         forest                     & forest)   environment     or 16.8; measures)                                              cooperation) BE                X (Fl.)            X (Fl.)            X (Fl.)          X      X (Wall.)                     X (Fl.) BG                   X                                     X             X           X           X               X CZ                                                         X             X           X           X               X DK                   X                                     X             X                       X               X DE (16            X (in 9      X (in 10 Länder)        X (in 10          X        X (in 5     X (in 3        X (in 12 Länder)          Länder)                               Länder)                   Länder)      Länder)        Länder) EE                   X                                     X             X           X                           X IE                   X                                                   X                                       X EL                   X                  X                  X             X           X                           X ES (17           X (in 11      X (in 11 regions)       X (in 17          X        X (in 4     X (in 8        X (in 15 regions)         regions)                              regions)                  regions)    regions)        regions) FR (27           X (in 23      X (in 21 regions)       X (in 25          X       X (in 14 X (in 1 region)    X (in 25 regions)         regions)                              regions)                  regions)                    regions) HR                   X                  X                  X             X                                       X IT (20           X (in 20      X (in 14 regions)       X (in 20          X        X (in 9     X (in 6        X (in 20 regions)         regions)                              regions)                  regions)    regions)        regions) CY                   X                                     X             X           X                           X LV                                                         X             X           X LT                   X                                     X             X           X                           X LU                                                                       X HU                   X                                     X             X           X           X               X MT                   X                                     X             X                                       X NL                   X                                                                                           X AT                   X                  X                  X             X           X           X               X PL                                                         X             X                                       X PT                   X                                     X             X           X           X               X RO                                                         X             X                       X               X SI                                                         X             X                                       X SK                                                         X             X           X           X               X FI                   X                  X                                X                                       X SE                   X                                     X             X                                       X UK (4 UK        X (in the 4          X (in 2         X (in the 4         X                    X (in 3       X (in the 4 countries)      countries)         countries)         countries)                            countries)      countries) EU-28               21                 10                 24            27          16          13              26 Source: Member State RDPs Examples of measure design in the case study Member States The way in which the CAP Pillar 2 measures are structured and implemented varies significantly between Member States, resulting in an array of different approaches and detailed operations available to beneficiaries. Some examples of the ways in which key measures have been implemented in the case studies examined for this study are set out below. Some of the measures are used in combination. For example, in Croatia, Hungary, Ireland and Latvia, training courses operating under Measure 1 are compulsory for some or all those receiving funding under the AECM or organic farming measures. In Hungary, the non-productive investments measure operates alongside the AECM. Advice and training on biodiversity is provided to varying degrees in the case study Member States, funded under M1 and M2. In some cases, this is provided under the FAS (see section 5.1.2.1), but in many Member States, it is provided separately. In most of the case study Member States, advice is Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 36

provided in relation to the AECM (M10) and the organic farming measures (M11) and occasionally the Natura 2000 measures (M12), where this is used. In Germany (B-W), M2 is used to fund a range of advisory modules that farmers can choose from, with the biodiversity modules linked to M10 and M11 funded at 100% (other modules are funded between 50-80%). To date, however, uptake has been low (2% of the advice contracts), with a focus on farmland birds, the extensive management of grassland and organic/integrated crop protection. In France, general communications have been provided to farmers about the potential for the AECM to deliver for biodiversity, with interactive sessions available focussing on hedge management and farmland birds. In Member States where compulsory training is required to enter specific measures (e.g. AECM, OF, Natura 2000), this can consist of one-off advice sessions (e.g. in IE where farmers are provided with information on the AECM commitments, the impacts of pollution and the importance of protected sites) or ongoing training (e.g. in HR where farmers must attend six hours of compulsory training each year for the five years of the agreement). In Ireland, specialist advice is also available for certain schemes, such as the Burren Programme for managing semi-natural grasslands as well as the locally-led biodiversity results-based pilot projects, funded under M16. In Latvia, advice is also provided linked to the M8 forest measures for which optional forest-related training courses are available focusing on protecting biodiversity during logging and on managing private forests to maintain or enhance their biological diversity. Measure 4.4 (non-productive investments) is used by a number of the case study Member States to support biodiversity objectives through funding investments beneficial for nature conservation. Some examples of how this measure is used are set out in Box 5. Box 5: Examples of the design of non-productive investments measure (M4.4) In Germany (Baden-Württemberg), M4.4 is used to provide investments in nature conservation and landscape management which include, for example, support for: site construction, including technical equipment, machinery; and for exhibitions, nature trails, visitor guidance, and visitor information. In Hungary, this measure works in conjunction with the AECM and provides support for farmers to decrease farming intensity by putting in place grassland, pollinator margins, green fallow, and plant hedgerows. In Portugal, the measure is used for the creation and recovery of riparian forests, eradication of woody invasive species and recovery of stone walls. In Croatia, although not yet implemented, the eligible investments will be for building terraces, stone walls and planting hedges; removing invasive alien species from agricultural land; procuring electric shepherds with related equipment and/or indigenous sheepdogs; building new and restoration of existing livestock housing in areas of natural distribution of large carnivores; restoring habitats important for biodiversity preservation on agricultural land primarily focused on grasslands which are overgrown by scrub or other woody vegetation; and for the renovation of derelict traditional ponds for livestock. Source: case studies The AECM is designed in very different ways in the case study Member States. Many Member States/regions offer both horizontal measures that are available across the majority of arable, grassland or permanent crop areas as well as more targeted measures for specific habitats and species (e.g. DE, IE, FR, HU, SK) whereas in other Member States, only more targeted measures are available, for example focussing the AECM in Natura 2000 areas (PT) or on protecting specific habitats and species (HR, NL, PT). Box 6 provides some examples of the different ways in which Member States have chosen to orient their AECMs. Uptake also varies significantly (see below). Box 6: Examples of the design of the AECM in selected case study Member States In Baden-Wurttemberg (DE), the AECM is divided into two types of measures: there are measures that are open to all interested farmers under the Funding Programme for Environment, Climate Protection and Animal Welfare Baden-Württemberg (FAKT) and more highly targeted nature conservation contracts, run by the nature conservation authority and targeted specifically to areas of high conservation value. Farmers are approached directly to enter these contracts which are funded nationally and managed under the Landscape Conservation Regulation. The measures and their targets focus on maintaining semi-natural grassland management more than on actions on arable land. In this region there is also a combined EFA/AECM option, where flowering mixtures can be planted on EFA fallow areas under the AECM. In France a national framework of measures is produced, from which the regions can pick those that are appropriate for their regional situation to design their AECM. There are four types of measures available to regions: ‘system measures’ which apply to the whole farm, ‘localised measures’ which are farm parcel specific and organised under eight themes: phyto, cover, irrigation, linear, habitats, open environment, hamster, grassland; measures to protect genetic resources; and a specific measure for honey bees. The system and localised measures are implemented through agri-environment-climate projects in priority areas (defined by the Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 37

region). The projects are designed by a group of organisations in these priority zones and if approved are then opened to applications from farmers. In Ireland, the Green, Low Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS) is based around a tiered approach of Priority Environmental Assets (PEA) and (Priority/General Actions) as follows:     Tier 1 (a): Farms that have one or more of the pre-identified assets (farmland Habitat (private Natura sites), farmland Birds, Commonages (50% target participation in GLAS Commonage Plan), High Status Water Area, Rare Breeds (livestock) has priority access to the scheme. In return all required actions to protect and enhance the PEAs must be fulfilled.     Tier 1 (b): Farms with livestock ≥140kg N/ha or ≥ 30ha arable crops must apply at least 1 action - arable (Minimum Tillage, Catch crop establishment from a sown crop), livestock (Low-Emission Slurry Spreading, Wild Bird Cover). Organic farmers also have priority access to relevant actions under Tier 1 (b), but must choose action relevant to applicable assets.     Tier 2 (a): Farms in Vulnerable Water Area who do not have Priority Environmental Assets who must apply the appropriate actions.     Tier 2 (b): Farms with livestock <140kg N/ha or <30ha arable crops also entering Tier 2 (a) must apply at 1 action - arable (Minimum Tillage, Catch crops, wild bird cover if more than 75% grass), livestock (Low-Emission Slurry Spreading, Wild Bird Cover).     Tier 3: Comprises priority and general actions. A scoring matrix is used to allow farmers to join GLAS for Tier 3 if take-up of Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions permits as well as for Tiers 1 and 2 (depending on the number of applications). Hungary has changed the design of its AECM for the 2014-2020 period to introduce a modular system. This offers horizontal arable and grassland schemes with compulsory practices to which optional additional management prescriptions can be added, such as the creation of field margins, and bird-friendly mowing techniques. In addition, farmers who chose the additional management options had a greater chance of being offered an agreement. Latvia’s approach has been to offer just four very specific measures to farmers to promote: overwinter stubbles; maintaining the biological diversity of grasslands (focussed on grasslands protected under the Birds and Habitats directives); creating habitats to promote pollinator species; and integrated farming techniques for the horticulture sector. In Netherlands, the focus has been on four key habitats protected under the Birds and Habitats directives to which specific actions are tailored are: open grassland habitat; open field habitat; dry green infrastructure; wet green infrastructure. The measure is only available to farmers in areas covered by collectives. Portugal provides support to integrated farming and traditional permanent crops throughout the Member State, but targets specific actions within Natura 2000 areas. In each of these areas, the focus of the AECM is different – e.g. the management of grazing on common land, maintenance of terraces, conservation of particularly notable forests, maintenance of dry cereal-fallow rotations. It also supports particular habitats (e.g. montado) or species (e.g. Iberian wolf) outside Natura 2000 areas. Alongside measures to protect HNV grasslands, Romania, Slovakia and Croatia provide targeted support for specific habitats and species (birds and butterflies) in both grassland and arable areas. Most of the case study Member States (all except LV and NL) have also provided support for preserving endangered native and protected breeds of domestic livestock and some also for protecting traditional plant species (HU, PT). Source: case studies Examples of how the Natura 2000 measure is implemented are set out in Box 7. Box 7: Member States' use of the Natura 2000 measure – agriculture and forests. In Portugal, the Natura 2000 payments support beneficiaries for restrictions on intensification and afforestation of grassland areas, covering costs and loss of income. The payments are designed to work together with agri- environmental options targeted at specific Natura 2000 zones (covering common lands, terraced lands, chestnut forests, dry cereal steppes, meadows, montado, areas with wolves etc.). The German region of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has implemented the forest Natura 2000 payments for private forest owners in Natura 2000 areas with native deciduous forests (Landesforst MVP, 2018). The basic annual payment of €25 is available for all forest areas within Natura 2000, but the payment is significantly higher in areas of one of the HD forest habitat types (HD habitats 9110, 9130, 9150, 9160, 9180, 9190, 91D0, 91E0), in areas designated for Osmoderma eremita, Myotis myotis or Barbastella barbastellus, and in forest areas protected for Aquila pomarina. The highest payment rate of €200 is available for areas with a combination of these conservation objectives. In order to receive the payment, forest owners must:     Mark the location of at least 6 native habitat type typical mature trees per ha on a map of their forest. Mature trees must be at least 40 cm in diameter. If the forest does not contain enough such mature trees, the map should mark the location of at least 6 of the largest trees with the potential to grow to sufficient size. If the forest is Osmoderma eremita habitat, the trees should be the ones with tree holes, Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 38

clear rotten areas, lightning strike areas, low branches. If the forest is habitat for one or both of the bat species, the trees should be deciduous species or conifers with peeling bark, split or cracked trunk, visible tree holes including woodpecker holes.       Mark the trees themselves with a blue ring, if the forest is Osmoderma eremita habitat. This is not required for the other forest areas, but recommended.       Keep a diary of forest management practices. Forest owners can download a map of their forest area from the internet. The federal state has developed a forest parcel database (FORST-INVEKOS) and applications must be made online. Although not directly focussed on achieving biodiversity outcomes, the ANC measure (M13) has been programmed primarily under Priority 4. However, seven of the ten case study Member States did not identify any eligibility criteria in place for the measure. In Ireland and Latvia, minimum stocking densities have been put in place (see Box 8). Box 8: Case study Member States' use of stocking density eligibility criteria for the ANC payment From 2019, in Ireland, the eligible area under the ANC has been changed, to meet EU requirements to base eligibility on bio physical criteria. In practice, the vast majority of land that was eligible under the LFA criteria will remain eligible under the new approach, and farmers with land that is no longer eligible will receive degressive phasing out payments. The ANC eligibility includes a minimum stocking density requirement, which for 2019 is set at 0.15 livestock units per forage hectare. In Latvia, to receive the payment there must be at least 0.3 livestock units per hectare, the aim of which was to promote cattle grazing on grassland, so that it was not just mown to receive the payments and this was considered better for biodiversity. However, because no criteria were set for arable land in ANC areas, grassland can be converted to arable and still receive the payments, leading to biodiversity losses where semi-natural habitats have been affected. NGOs have therefore called for grassland of EU importance to be exempt from the livestock grazing criterion. In France, a new ANC map was introduced in 2019 as a result of the application of the revised EU ANC criteria. This has led to an increase in the number of farms supported by 13% (from 52,500 to 60,000 beneficiaries). However, it has also led to the exclusion of some farms, especially livestock farms in intermediate areas. Support to these farms will be reduced digressively in 2019 and 2020. In addition, the French government has introduced a number of eligibility criteria to target ANC payments especially for livestock farms. Source: case studies Finally, measures for forest areas where expenditure is linked explicitly to biodiversity (M8.5 and M15) were only implemented in a few of the case study Member States. Examples of the focus of these measures are set out in Box 9. The afforestation and agro-forestry measures (M8.1 and 8.2) can provide biodiversity benefits, however Member States have primarily programmed them under Priority 5 for climate. Examples from the case studies show that in some places, implementation choices have also taken into account biodiversity – for example Latvia, support for woodland creation (M8.1) is intended to encourage land owners to create more biologically diverse forest stands instead of monocultures and in Portugal, the agro-forestry measure (8.2) supports the creation of new areas of agro-forestry systems, based on native oak species and under low-intensity management. Box 9: Examples of implementation choices for forest related measures M8.5 and M15 M8.5 - support for investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems In Croatia the focus of this measure is to convert degraded forest stands (coppice forests, shrubs, scrubland, macquis and garigues) into high quality forest stands and to convert plantation forests into forest stands with mixed indigenous tree species. In Germany (Baden-Württemberg), under this measure a scheme has been introduced called ‘Nature conservation in forests and improvement of forests' regeneration function’. This targets forest biotopes, habitats, species, small structural elements, and nature-compatible infrastructure in the forest areas. It also supports the creation, development and expansion of (1) forest biotopes; (2) habitats for forest species under Annex II of the Habitats Directive; as well as (3) wetlands and small water bodies; and (4) nature-compatible infrastructure to improve the recreational value of the forest. In Portugal, this measure supports management actions on holdings with forestry or agro-forestry to promote: the protection and enhancement of biodiversity; adaptation to climate change through natural regeneration or changing the structure and composition of forest patches; and, improving the delivery of ecosystem services (namely carbon sequestration). M15 – Forest-environment-climate payments Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 39

In Portugal, this measure is targeted specifically to maintain and improve the conservation status of riparian forests (priority habitat), and to support their regulation function (water) and to provide support to agricultural and agro-forestry landscapes to maintain and promote good conditions for the conservation status of the Iberian lynx. Support to preserve and improve forest genetic resources is also included. In Slovakia, the measure aims to protect a range of threatened bird species as follows:     Birds of Prey and Owls: European Honey-buzzard, Black Kite, Red Kite, White-tailed Sea-eagle, Short- toed Snake-eagle, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Eastern Imperial Eagle, Golden Eagle, Saker Falcon, Peregrine falcon,      Eurasian    Eagle-owl,       Eurasian        pygmy owl,     Ural    Owl,    Boreal      Owl Waders: Black Stork     Cavity nest: Grey-faced Woodpecker, Black Woodpecker, Middle Spotted Woodpecker, White-backed Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, Red-necked Flycatcher, White-necked Flycatcher     Forest grouse: Capercaillie, Black Grouse There are also requirements for forest birds in SPAs: restricted time for logging, other close to nature sylvicultural practices. This measure has high uptake to date – the target uptake of 24,000 ha of supported forests in Natura 2000 was already reached after two years of implementation (2017). In Hungary, the measure is targeted at Natura 2000 with the following aim: to establish & maintain microhabitats, selective felling & reduction of clearcutting, leave tree groups standing, conversion of forest stands (removing non-native and invasive species), establish and maintain forest clearings, maintenance based on manual work, environmentally friendly wood handling methods. In Romania, two packages of measures are offered to land managers: package 1 ‘Ensure quiet areas’ and package 2 ‘Use of the harnesses to collect the wood from woodlands’. Package 2 is dependent on taking up Package 1. There has been no uptake to date. Source: case studies Under M16.5, Member States have the option to support ‘joint action’ to deliver environmental objectives, including biodiversity. This can involve bringing together multiple actors to work collaboratively to manage land that delivers environmental objectives. Some examples of how this measure is used are included in the Box below. Box 10: Examples of collective approaches in the case study Member States In Hungary, M16.5 has been used to pilot a landscape wide results based approach to environmental management, based on the coordinated action of several producers. The aim of the measure is to facilitate, by encouraging cooperation between farmers and supporting implementation, the application of harmonised regional approaches to improve the environmental performance of agriculture. In the target areas for ‘landscape farming’ payments are based on the environmental performance of farms, calculated by a green point assessment (points awarded for performance against different ‘green’ indicators). No information is available on implementation to date. In Ireland, the agri-environment scheme supports and gives priority access to farmers who own common land (peat and grass). Farmers are required to submit a five-year Commonage Management Plan, to which at least 50% of active shareholders (farmers) or a group of shareholders together owning more than 50% of the shares in the commonage have signed to. The agreement has to be drawn with support from a qualified adviser, with the aim to achieve a balanced grazing regime over an area, including maximum and minimum stocking levels. In France some measures are open to both individuals and groups of farmers, for example the M10.1 pastoral management (for summer pastures, mountain pastures, heaths, rangelands, etc.). Others, such as the preservation or re-introduction of value chains for rare poultry breeds are only open to associations or collective organisations owning breeders threatened by abandonment (M10.2). In Netherlands from 2016 the agri-environment-climate measure has been operated via collectives. All agri- environmental schemes targeting open arable and grassland are organised on a collective basis with the management performance by cooperatives of farmers and other stakeholders. Germany uses M16.7 to support the coordination of a large scale project targeting Nature parks that contributes to the promotion of culture and the preservation of the cultural heritage, including nature conservation. It also uses M7.6 to provide services for nature conservation and landscape management (plans, conceptions, environmental awareness), development of natural and cultural heritage in nature parks and projects for the conservation, restoration and improvement of rural landscapes and areas with high nature value. In Portugal, payments are made under M10.1 to ‘Common Land’ Associations for the maintenance of grazing in pastures and meadows to support habitats within Natura 2000 areas. Result-based agri-environment type schemes operate in a number of Member States, although some are implemented as pilot projects using the cooperation measure under the EAFRD (M16). These schemes are characterised by the annual payments to farmers being directly linked to the quality of the biodiversity on their farms (rather than to compliance with detailed management requirements as Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 40

in other M 10.1 schemes). Some examples of the use of result-based schemes are included in the Box below. Box 11: Examples of results-based approaches in the case study Member States Ireland has operated a results-based payment scheme in the Burren for many years, but only under this programming period has it been funded under M10.1. This scheme pays farmers for the management of high nature value farmland in the Burren with a specific focus on the management of species-rich limestone grasslands and associated grazed Habitats. It has also introduced a number of new pilot results-based schemes under M16.5, both management of farmland to support quality habitat for the Hen Harrier (where the payment is awarded based on the type of habitat present and foraging potential) and the management of specific water catchment areas to support the freshwater pearl mussel. Both France and Germany operate results based agri-environment schemes for the maintenance of the species-rich grassland (M10.1). In Romania, using funding from the European Parliament, a pilot Agri-Environment Scheme for the Tarnava Mare and Pogány Havas regions was operated between 2016 and 2019. The scheme pays farmers for the delivering species-rich meadows which are measured using indicator plant species. Thirty plant indicator species have been identified which are easy to recognise and flower in spring/summer and are associated with high plant and animal species-richness and sensitive to changes in management. Farmers have the freedom to manage their meadows according to local conditions and annual weather variations in order to deliver the results required. Three different payment levels are available: €213/year for 5 species; €229/year for 8 species; and €259/year for 10 species. Most contracts were for achieving the basic 5 indicator species. Uptake was as follows: -         Tarnava Mare – 16 farmers covering 68 ha -         Pogány Havas – 60 farmers over 162 parcels covering 110 ha Figure 2 shows the figures for the AECM (M10) as a proportion of UAA at Member State level. At an EU level, 30.6 million ha are planned to be under an AECM agreement by 2020 (for priority 4), the equivalent of 17% of UAA . The figures by UAA give a feel for the coverage of the schemes. Figure 2 28 shows that, in five Member States, over 50% of UAA is programmed to be covered by an AECM agreement (for priority 4) - Austria (67%), Estonia (65%), Finland (84%), Luxembourg (88%) and Sweden (50%). In contrast, 10% or less of UAA is programmed in nine Member States - Bulgaria (2%), Croatia (3%), Denmark (4.8%), France (10%), Lithuania (5%), Latvia (10%), Malta (5%), Netherlands (6%), and Romania (10%). Figure 2: Priority 4 M10 area as a proportion of UAA at Member State level Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EAFRD Indicator Plan, 2017 November, UAA data from Eurostat, 2018 Member States report progress against their output indicators relating to the area under agreement in their Annual Implementation Reports (AIR). For the AECM, they break down the area according to a 28 Figures at November 2017. Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 41

number of sub-indicators. Uptake reported in the 2017 AIRs for the sub-indicators that are relevant for biodiversity are set out in Table 9. Table 9: Area under agreement for M10.1 by 2017 at EU level Area under agreement        Number of Member States Measure 10.1 – sub-indicator                     (ha) by mid-2017) – EU         reporting uptake against 28                      these categories Maintenance of HNV arable and grassland systems (e.g.                              8,938,098  All except CY, EL, MT mowing techniques, hand labour, leaving of winter stubbles in      (11.6% of area estimated arable areas), introduction of extensive grazing practices,                       to be HNV) conversion of arable land to grassland. Creation, upkeep of ecological features (e.g. field margins,                       2,244,752  All except BG, DK, EE, EL, CY, buffer areas, flower strips, hedgerows, trees)                    (2.1% of total arable area) EL, HU, MT, RO Management of inputs incl. integrated production (reduction of                     5,752,696  All except BG, DK, PL, RO, SE mineral fertilisers, reduction of pesticides)                       (5% of total arable area) Reduction of drainage, management of wetlands                                        541,191  Only ES, IT, HU, PL, FI, SE, UK Reduction of irrigated areas and/or irrigation rate, irrigation                      103,024  Only EL, FR, IT, CY, LT, PT, UK techniques Source: AGRI-dashboard A similarly varied picture can be seen for the organic farming measure (M11), as shown in Figure 3. Overall, at EU level, all Member States except Netherlands have offered M11, with a total of 2.3 million ha planned to be converted to organic (1.3% UAA) and 8.2 million ha to be maintained (4.6% UAA) . Those Member States planning to convert the greatest proportion of UAA to organic are 29 Cyprus (9%), Estonia (6%), Greece (10%) and those planning to maintain the greatest proportion of UAA under organic management are Austria (18%), Cyprus (26%) and Finland (16%), with Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy and Sweden all planning to maintain between 10 and 15%. Austria is the only Member State (apart from NL) that is not providing funding for the conversion of land to organic farming. Member States planning to fund the maintenance of organic farming on less than 3% of UAA are Bulgaria (0.5%), France (1.6%), Croatia (2.9%), Hungary (1.6%), Ireland (1%), Malta (0.1%), Portugal (2.3%), Romania (0.6%) and the United Kingdom (2.2%). Figure 3: Area programmed to come under agreement for M11 as a proportion of UAA Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EAFRD Indicator Plan, 2017 November, UAA data from Eurostat, 2018 By the middle of 2017, the AIRs showed that, at EU level, 1.4 million ha had been converted to organic and 6.4 million ha were being maintained using the organic measure (approximately 54% of the total 29 Figures at November 2017. Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 42

organic area). In Croatia, the target for organic conversion had been exceeded by more than four times by 2018. A total area of 1.4 million hectares is planned to be covered by compensation payments for agriculture in Natura 2000 areas (M12.1). This equates to 8.2% of permanent grassland area in Natura 2000 areas or 8.9% of the UAA, ranging from under 3% of UAA in Austria, Czechia, France, Slovakia and Spain and as much as 56% in Cyprus and Estonia (see Figure 4). The majority of this area is in Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal. By 2017 1.26 million ha (89% of the target area) was under agreement in 10 of the 12 Member States in which this measure was programmed (no data provided in FR or CY). In Hungary and Portugal the target has been exceeded. Figure 4: Area programmed to come under agreement for M12.1 as a proportion of UAA in Natura 2000 areas Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EAFRD Indicator Plan, 2017 November, UAA data from Eurostat, 2018, UAA in Natura 2000 sites from Con ext indicator 34. Measure 12.2 (compensation payments in forest Natura 2000 areas) is programmed in 12 Member States, with a total area planned to come under agreement of 382,339 ha. This is 0.9% of 30 the total forest area within Natura 2000 areas (42.2 million ha in 2015 ). This ranges from less than one per cent in Germany, Portugal and Spain to 63% in Belgium. By 2017 293,270 ha (77% of the target area) was under agreement in eight of the 12 Member States (no uptake data was reported for Bulgaria, Greece, Spain and Italy). 30 Eurostat data: for_protect. Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 43

Figure 5: Area programmed to come under agreement for M12.2 as a proportion of FOWL in Natura 2000 areas Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EAFRD Indicator Plan, 2017 November Data for the forest-environment measure (M15) shows that 1.4 million ha have been programmed to come under agreement in 14 Member States, with over 50% of this planned in Romania (820,000 ha). By 2017 only 163,821 ha had come under agreement and with no uptake in Romania. The case study suggests that applicants have been put off by the low level of payments. In Portugal the measure was not introduced until 2017. The forest measures (M8) include measures for afforestation (M8.1), agro-forestry (M8.2) and support for investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems (M8.5). Not all these measures are programmed under Priority 4 – afforestation and agro-forestry in particular are prioritised predominantly under the climate objective. Table 10: Uptake of the forest measures by mid-2017 - EU 28 M8.1 –            M8.2 – Agro-     M8.5 – forest      M15 – forest- Afforestation             Forestry     ecosystems         environment Target area                                       474,919               71,063         2,620,360        1,407,742 Target area allocated to                          121,880               58,052         2,620,360        1,399,405 Priority 4 Uptake by mid-2017                                  44,377                  515          483,746          163,822 Uptake as % of target area                           9.3%                 0.7%            18.5%            11.6% Uptake as % of FOWL                                  0.0%                 0.0%             0.3%             0.1% No of Member States                                     11                    6               13               10 Area of uptake that is allocated                    15,349                16.16          483,746          162,868 to Priority 4 Proportion of uptake allocated                      34.6%                 3.1%             100%              99% to Priority 4 Source: European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EAFRD Indicator Plan, 2017 November These EU-28 figures hide contrasting situations in different Member States in relation to uptake. Allocation of budget to biodiversity relevant measures in Pillar 2 The proportion of the budget allocated to Priority 4 under the EAFRD is used to give an indication of the biodiversity focussed expenditure in each Member State. However, because Priority 4 can also relate to expenditure on other ecosystem services, such as water and soils and because measures programmed to other priorities can have co-benefits for biodiversity, this provides only a broad indication of the biodiversity focus of Rural Development Programmes. Final Report Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 44