Evaluation of the Impact of the CAP on Habitats, Landscapes, Biodiversity

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives and scope of the evaluation study
1.2 Geographic coverage and timeframe
1.3 Definitions of key terms
2 DESCRIPTIVE CHAPTER
2.1 The EU biodiversity target and policy framework
2.2 The relationship between agriculture, forestry and biodiversity, landscapes and habitats
2.3 Biodiversity status and trends in agricultural and forest habitats and species
3 DESCRIPTION OF CAP MEASURES AND THEIR INTERVENTION LOGIC
4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND METHODS FOR THE EVALUATION
4.1 Development of an evaluation framework
4.2 Identifying the counterfactual
4.3 Methodological tools
4.4 Indicators and other statistical data used
4.5 Limitations of the methods proposed
4.6 Approach for the case studies
5 CAUSAL ANALYSIS
5.1 ESQ 1: What is the architecture of CAP implementation in member states in relation to all CAP instruments and measures having effects on biodiversity and landscapes (i.e. choices concerning pillars i and ii)?
5.2 ESQ 2: What are the drivers and reasons behind the implementation choices regarding the CAP instruments and measures directly or indirectly related to biodiversity?
5.3 ESQ 3: What are the impacts of these implementation choices at the level of the beneficiaries (farmers/foresters) in terms of land use patterns, intensity of land use (intensification and land abandonment) and geographical distribution of production?
6 EFFECTIVENESS
6.1 ESQ 4: To what extent have CAP instruments and measures individually and taken together contributed to achieving the objective of sustainable management of natural resources and climate action with a focus on restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and landscapes (heterogeneity, features, corridor effects)?
6.2 ESQ 5: To what extent have CAP instruments and measures contributed to maintain and improve the conservation status of species and habitats of the Community interest, landscape diversity and connectivity of natural areas, and to increase, contain or alleviate the identified pressures from agriculture and forestry on biodiversity?
6.3 ESQ 6: To what extent have CAP instruments and measures addressed the impact of biodiversity on agriculture and forestry (e.g. measures supporting coexistence between sheep grazing and wolves, crop cultivation and geese, pollinators and fruit/vegetable production practices)?
6.4 ESQ 7: To what extent are the biodiversity priorities for the implementation of cap instruments and measures by Member States in line with and giving effect to biodiversity strategies at national and regional levels?
6.5 ESQ 8: Which successful approaches concerning the implementation of the CAP instruments and measures on biodiversity, landscapes, including protected habitats (including those with positive effect on economic viability and wider rural development objectives) can be identified and what are critical factors for the success?
7 EFFICIENCY
7.1 ESQ 9: Regarding CAP instruments and measures: to what extent have the cap instruments and measures as implemented by the Member States generated the best possible results towards the objective of sustainable management of natural resources and climate action with a focus on restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity and the state of landscapes with its available budget?
7.2 ESQ 10: REGARDING ADMINISTRATION AND SIMPLIFICATION: TO WHAT EXTENT
8 COHERENCE
8.1 ESQ 11: To what extent have the CAP instruments and measures, within the CAP architecture been coherent related to supporting biodiversity?
8.2 ESQ 12: Are biodiversity-related instruments and measures coherent with the other CAP general objectives (viable food production and balanced territorial development)?
8.3 ESQ 13: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE CAP INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES COHERENT WITH OTHER RELATED EU AND NATIONAL POLICIES RELEVANT FOR BIODIVERSITY (E.G. BIRDS AND HABITATS, NITRATES AND WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES, SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDE DIRECTIVE, ESI FUNDS)? IN PARTICULAR, TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE CAP INSTRUMENTS CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACTIONS OF TARGET 3 OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020, NAMELY TO
9 RELEVANCE
9.1 ESQ 14: To what extent do the CAP instruments and measures correspond and allow adaptations to the current needs and/or new or emerging issues in relation to biodiversity and landscapes in agricultural and forestry areas?
10 EU ADDED VALUE
10.1 ESQ 15: To what extent have the CAP instruments and measures created EU added value in relation to biodiversity and landscapes?
11 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 Causal analysis
11.2 Effectiveness
11.3 Efficiency
11.4 Coherence
11.5 Relevance
11.6 EU added value
12 RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEX 1: BHD HABITATS AND SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURE AND FORESTS
ANNEX 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON AECM IN THE CASE STUDY MEMBER STATES
ANNEX 3: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON COHERENCE IN THE CASE STUDY MEMBER
ANNEX 4: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE RELEVANCE OF CAP MEASURES IN THE CASE STUDY MEMBER STATES
BIBLIOGRAPHY